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 Purits, yes niceguy2. You have expressed what I did not have the eloquence to do.

I lurked for along time on MN, before this topic piqued my interest. I am a little disheartened at how passive agressive some have been, including towards myself.

"The typical Tory hater is a person who believes the state should be responsible for providing everything they cannot. The rich should be relentlessly taxed to pay for all the things they feel is a good cause. But crucially without taking the time nor effort to understand if said cause is affordable. Affordability isn't something your Tory hater needs to think about. That's just some Tory bullshit designed to keep the poor, poor."

a) I'm not a Tory hater
b) I don't believe people should be 'relentlessly' taxed
c) I absolutely agree that providing money for the less well able/better off should be affordable
d) I resent the implication that I somehow do not engage my own brain to consider these issues
d) I also don't actually think that the Tories are trying to keep the poor poor

I believe that the state should be there to support those who are less fortunate which, let's face it, could actually be any one of us. Even those of us who have worked hard all our lives to achieve a higher standard of living, a bigger house, a better car - whatever.

I could lose my business tomorrow. It's very nearly happened twice in the 14 years I have been running it. My husband could be made redundant very shortly - he's already been through consultation once, and the division of the bank he works for is being sold off, so anything could happen. And at the age of 54, his chances of waltzing into another, equally well-paid job are probably fairly slim.

However, as well as me (or 'you'), there are whole swathes of the population who need help to just lead a basic lifestyle. We should be aiming, as a country/state/civilisation/society (delete which ever words you find most insulting) to ensure that we are providing for the less fortunate. Within the means that we have available.

But. And it's a big but. The typical Tory view about small state/lower taxes has a direct impact on our ability to do this. The less tax we pay, the less money there is for this kind of provision. And so it then becomes 'unaffordable'. Do you see where this is going?

Some of the arguments on this thread are similar to the arguments of religious fanatics. They see themseleves as saintly, caring and as having lots of empathy and a moral compass and they view Tories as lacking empathy, thick and as reading papers that are vile and bigoted and prejudiced. They see themelves as saints and Tories as thick sinners who vote for the "nasty party". They demonise Tories just as religious fanatics demonise those who don't share their beliefs.

EdithWeston is right
Attributing an emotional position for inadequate reasons is a prime example of poor reasoning.

It is all the political trick of all demagogues and anti-democrats who appeal to emotion and demonise opposing views.

Most people vote Tory because they believe that the Tories offer the best hope of delivering a vibrant economy. Most people care about the economy and they think that the Tories also care about the economy. Most elections are won on the economy, just as in the States we had "it's the economy stupid".

People care about the economy because it is that that can pay for all the benefits and services that we have. Everybody wants a better NHS with better drugs available and more dialysis machines and shorter waiting lists. Everybody gets ill or has relatives that get ill and everybody knows that the economy is crucial in paying for good care.

Most voters see the economy as the key issue and those who vote Tory believe that the Tories are the better financial managers.

The head of the armed forces has today said that the UK's greatest threat is economic not military. He said "the country's main effort must be the economy, as 'no country can defend itself if bankrupt'." That's the reason that voters choose the Tories.

They want a government that will provide good stewardship of the country's finances, that will provide prosperity and not 'light touch regulation' of bankers. They want a government that will never again leave a note saying "sorry there's no money left" which is what has led to this terrible austerity and cuts. They want a caring government, one that cares about the economy, their jobs and future prospects. That's why so many choose to vote Tory.

Are they thick? They don't think so, whatever names they are called by the opposition who left the note saying "sorry there's no money left".

"Sorry there's no money left"

Sorry, but that's not good enough.
That's why the clever public voted them out and that's why they call Tories thick.

Exactly Claig.

The only word missing from that note was "...again".

Perhaps the issue here is just that it is very important to separate the decisions taken by the current government, the political line and the Tories as persons.

As an example, my parents are lovely people that will always go the extra mile to help. The are caring and compasionate. But they can also have very racist views in my pov, something that they do not see. But it doesn't stop them having no problem living in a multi-cultural environment, getting on with everybody and having very good friends who are not from their own race/culture (They have being lioving overseas/abraod about half of their lifes).

The same goes for political pov. You might not agree with the political line of the Tory Party. But it doesn't mean that one person is stupid, unintelligent or uncaring because they are Tories.

The typical Tory hater is a person who believes the state should be responsible for providing everything they cannot. The rich should be relentlessly taxed to pay for all the things they feel is a good cause.

That sort of somment though is just the sort of comment that will makes people think a 'Tory' is an 'untilligent person'. It's just generalizations based on prejudice. Actually not such a different way to take things that when talking about racism. It's about 'them' as oppose to 'us'.
How on earth are you supposed to have any sensible discusion on these basis???

claig I totally agree with your comaparaison to religious fanatics.
I would just add the some Tories are just as religioulsy fanatics.

'small state/lower taxes'

The above is about encouraging growth, economic growth that makes the country richer. It is about removing shackles and regulations from the public and businesses and giving them incentives to grow and prosper. It is about allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money and allowing them to choose how they will spend it, and when they spend it, their money will circulate and the government will get tax from VAT. It is about letting people prosper, about freedom and less state control.

Everybody wants to pay taxes for the NHS, police, fire services, benefits for disabled people, but they don't see why their taxes should be used to subsidise rich landowners who put up windfarms which catch fire when the wind blows too hard. People object to their tax money going to pay million pound salaries to BBC presenters and MPs' home flipping. They believe in questioning how their taxes are spent by the state, because they believe the state wastes lots of money.

The Tories believe that too, which is why they want a smaller state and less regulation and control of the people.

claig, you said
They see themelves as saints and then Attributing an emotional position for inadequate reasons is a prime example of poor reasoning.

In this light, could you explain me your next comment
That's why the clever public voted them out and that's why they call Tories thick?

OnlyForMe, you are right, there are also Tory fanatics.
But the people aren't Tory fanatics. The people are smart, they can see through all the spin. The majority of people who vote Tory aren't thick and aren't fanatic - they are sensible citizens, who make a free choice that they think meets their best interests, the interests of their families, the community and the nation.

That's the great thing about democracy, since so many people make a choice, then fanatics can't get their way.

OnlyForMe, I am not sure what you are asking me to do. I don't understand it.

Ah ah, I think you are much much more optimistic than me.
I don't believe for a second that people vote after carefully balancing the different issues and who said what or which policy will be the best.
The best indicator of vote for one person is still what their parents have been voting.
Also to be able to really have a 'real' understanding, you would need to do a lot of research, the sort of research that people at the LSE of whatever are doing. I don't have the time nor the energy nor the knowledge to do that.
Then add on the top of this some serious beliefs in what is the best system (whether it be capitalism, managed capitalism or a more socilate view) and being able to say what is the best to do is near impossible.
So when poeple vote they rely on what they hear on TV, read in the newspapers (but how many do?), knowing that these people will read the newspaper that defend 'their political views'. Few Tories will read a newspaper with Labour 'sides' (and the other way around).
Then add the that the newspaper and TV put a sopin on stories so they seel so they are most the time not reflecting reality but need to have an 'emotional language' and what do you think people are basing their opions on???

Yes, I agree with you. There is lots of propaganda from the media, the BBC, the Daily Mail, the Guardian etc. etc., and people are affected by it.

But, I also believe that on the whole, the taxi driver, the factory worker, the shop worker etc. don't need to listen to all the political spin on "sustainability" or whatever else the politicians say. The public are smart and know that in general "they are all the same" and that their spin doctors will play their usual game. The public don't need to read LSE publications to know where the parties' spin doctors are coming from, because they have seen the parties in action before, and if they haven't then their parentrs have. The public generally understand what the parties stand for and which suits their interests and the interests of the country best.

But you are right, that they are influenced by propaganda and spin. That is why it is so important that the public hear both sides of every story. The public deserves a free press with opposing views so that they can make their own minds up rather than being fed spin.

That's why we need great papers like the Guardian and the Daily Mail. Opponents will call them "vile", but they would say that wouldn't they?

Hiow else would we hear stories like this?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-accepted-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html

'Ah ah, I think you are much much more optimistic than me.'

Yes, you are right. I am generally optimistic about the people, but am more pessimistic about politicians. But you are right that propaganda can be used to sway the people and emotional propaganda is usually the most effective.
That's why often in election campaigns, the spin doctors bring out stories like "Jennifer's ear" in the last week of the campign in order to sway the public emotionally at the last minute and to prevent them from considering all of the other less emotional issues.

The only way to stop the effects of propaganda is for discussion of opposing views. Now with the internet and facebook and MN and blogs, opposing views can be sensibly discussed and the propagandists no longer have sole control of the media.

That's why I am in general optimistic for the people and their choices. I believe that in the long run "il popolo vincera"

Turits - I did not say people who vote tory are gunning for the most vulnerable in society - I am talking about the government and what they are doing.

I need to have empathy for tories? What exactly does that mean?

Some of their policies are beyond defensible, people who are dying of cancer being declared fit for work being just one. As for mental illness, well that doesn't exist. And disabled people are suddenly scroungers.

It's all very well to say that people need to take responsibility for themselves, but what about those who can't like my disabled daughter who at 10 years old can't even dress herself? Excuse me for not having any sympathy for those who are trying to erode her quality of life!

'Ah ah, I think you are much much more optimistic than me.'

I would rather the people made free choices than things being imposed on them by so-called "experts" who say they have their best interests at heart. When I hear them saying that they are caring and have empathy and that millions of other people don't and that millions of others are "thick" and choose to read "vile" publications, that's when I watch out, because propaganda is about.

I prefer democrats to technocrats, and the worst kind of technocrats are the ones who say they have "empathy".

Actually, Claig, I had no idea that the Tories were known as the 'nasty party'. I do not remember being interested in politics when I was 14yo. Which was how old I was when Tony Blair won the 1997 election for Labour. I have had a Labour Government for my entire adult life, as will anyone age 30 or under.

My mother is a stauch Tory, but is also racist and homophobic, so I didn't feel like her views on politics counted tbh. All I had to go on when deciding who to vote for in this election was the media coverage, and what policies the different political parties were talking about on television. I didn't even do any online research, because at the time of the election, I was without computer access as my old laptop had broken.

So saying that people have seen the parties in action before isn't necessarily true, people don't necessarily understand what each party 'stands for' if they do not have people around them to discuss politics with. All some people looked at was what policies each party was publicising on television. Isn't that why a LOT of people that voted for the LibDems feel 'betrayed' over the University tuition fees - because that is NOT why they voted for them. None of the politicians were entirely honest during their campaigns for the General Election, were they?

I don't recall David Cameron standing up before the election in ANY press conferences and saying that he would cut the support for disabled children, for example. Or that he would stop disabled Lone Parents from being classed as a Carer for their disabled child/ren. Because I am sure that the Conservatives would have got a LOT less votes had he been up-front about those policies...

Oh no, I vividly remember a speech from DC which included the words 'The conservatives will take care of you if you're sick or disabled'. What bullshit.

I agree that not everyone has seen the parties before, but even though you haven't, I think you have made the best choice to vote Labour.

I don't think you are thick to have voted Labour, I think you are smart to have done so. But I also think that I and millions of others who voted Tory are also not thick to have done so. People have different views about what is best, but they aren't thick.

'None of the politicians were entirely honest during their campaigns for the General Election, were they?'

I don't think they ever are and that applies to all of them. Most people don't believe them and many people also don't believe what Labour are saying now in opposition. They think they would do differently if in office.

I notice you ignore the points raised about how this government are treating the sick and disabled, claig.

See the problem with people who lack empathy is that they can't imagine a situation where they would ever be in a position where they would need help from the state themselves, when, in reality it could happen to any one of them, any day.

Therin lies the difference in mentality - it's not really about who's thick but who is short sighted enough to refuse to believe anyone can suffer a misfortune through no fault of their own.

My tory voting family had to change their point of view considerably after my daughter was born and they realised they were not so special after all that adversity could not happen to us.......

I think you patronise millions of people. We all have relatives who have been in hospital and who have died in hospital. We know about teh often shocking treatment that elederly people receive in hospitals where some are dehydrated and not fed and where their relatives have to come in and wash them themselves. We read these stories in our "vile" newspapers.

You are not the only one that has suffered and you are not the only one that cares. When teh millions of teachers and oublic sector workers marched againbst teh pensions changes, do you think there were no Tories among them? Do you think that not one of those millions read the two most popular newspapers in the country?

Get off your hihgh horse and step in the mud where the ordinary people are, the ones who read the "vile" publications.

'You are not the only one who has suffered'

exactly That is my point claig!

I don't think I'm on any high horse frankly nor is there anything extrordinary about me - so stop being so unnecessarily rude.

Tory (and euro-skeptic) and very very proud! no apology