To think Tory voters have no moral compass and empathy

[Izzywizzyletsgetbizzy]

Firstly I'm not labour I follow politics but can not think of a party I really relate to.

Anyway every article I read the book I'm reading has made me come to that conclusion. I'm currently reading a book by Owen Jones which has really opened my eyes.

The fact that anyone with below £10 mil in their account can vote for them is beyond me.

But why would anyone vote for a party that bashes the disabled the poor and anyone outside of their Etonian elite. The only people that would want a party and policies like this have to have no empathy.

The point about the right wing investing in individual human autonomy rather misses the point that individuals don't start from a level playing field. There are enormous structural inequalities that mean some individuals are effectively operating with one arm tied behind their back.

And LOL at 'stop reading books and form your own opinion'. Someone actually wrote that? For real?

Manatee, I know very well that Blair will continue to tell anyone who will listen that he did the right thing, right up until the day he dies. It's what makes him particularly despicable.

Sorry, Samcro, do you not want us to discuss Blair?

Anyway every article I read the book I'm reading has made me come to that conclusion. I'm currently reading a book by Owen Jones which has really opened my eyes.

The sheer irony, and crass stupidity of someone who has read a book criticising others for having no "moral compass or empathy".

You sound ripe for a brainwashing cult OP.

Do you think political tolerance of opposing views has no place in a moral world? How do you think one party states (even those supposedly highly redistributive communist ones) were run by empathetic people? Even socialist Sweden is probably more right wing in certain policies in the UK at the moment (and has a history of eugenics by sterilisation and trampling on local culture and identity).

Maybe get a proper, non-biased education, run a successful profit making venture which contributes to the general wealth, and then make moralistic sounding pronouncements on what other people should think OP? Even then, you will still be far too intolerant by far - and that's what your real moral problem is.

Yabvvvvvextremely u

Maybe get a proper, non-biased education, run a successful profit making venture which contributes to the general wealth, and then make moralistic sounding pronouncements on what other people should think OP? Even then, you will still be far too intolerant by far - and that's what your real moral problem is.

Indeed.

I don't think you need to run a profitable business in order to have political opinions

I didn't say a profitable business or even defined profit in monetary terms - I was thinking of a charitable venture when I wrote that. But obviously businesses pay taxes, which contributes to the general wealth (although the current trend is to mock and deride the importance of this and focus on tax avoidance). Or go and succeed in some role leadership model such as sport, even at local level. Or simply get a proper, balanced education OP - where you learn to critically analyse what is after all the opinions of the writers of books, and to formulate your own opinions after reading a good and non-biased selection of sources reflecting all main viewpoints on the issue.

But one bloody book and you think its a source for morally postulating superiority? That's a way bigger problem than voting conservative you have right there.

"I didn't say a profitable business or even defined profit in monetary terms - I was thinking of a charitable venture when I wrote that. But obviously businesses pay taxes, which contributes to the general wealth (although the current trend is to mock and deride the importance of this and focus on tax avoidance). Or go and succeed in some role leadership model such as sport, even at local level"

Had you thougth of campaigning to restrict the franchise to property owning men over 30? It's worked in the past................

I lay a large part of the blame for current voter apathy/despair/indifference (delete as appropriate) at the feet of Blair.

He disillusioned an entire generation. He lied, he may well be considered a war criminal and he became not a little unhinged by the end.

He also buried Labour for another generation to come, and any claim it lay to a moral compass.

What I find monumentally unforgivable, however, is that he was a religious nutcase in plain sight, as bad as any Jihadiist. Please let us not forget this is a man who who chose to convert to a religion that denies women the right to abortion, contraception, divorce; any kind of acknowledgment towards the Union of gay couples or even any kind of humanist feeling towards the gay population. He chose all of that.

This is why we must, must, must separate government from moral compass, because politicians cannot be trusted to know what a moral compass is.

What Chandler has suggested is that the OP tries to run a business before she decides that everyone who votes Tory is immoral. That's hardly the same as suggesting she doesn't have the right to a vote or even a view. But don't let that stop you, you're on a roll!

Hakluyt Had you thougth of campaigning to restrict the franchise to property owning men over 30? It's worked in the past................

Sorry, what??! Are you on something?

You equate a request for political tolerance with restricting the vote? Can you also twist black into being white, and the sun into being the moon........?

What I find monumentally unforgivable, however, is that he was a religious nutcase in plain sight, as bad as any Jihadiist.

Absolutely.

On a semi-related note, Save the Children has apologized (kind of) for not qualifying their Legacy award for the part of Tony Blair who focused on Africa at 2 G8 summits, not the part of Tony Blair who led us into war.

I don't understand why you need to run anything in order to have an opinion on a political party?Just why?

Similarly, do you need to work in the NHS to have a view on the health system? Or have worked as a teacher to have a view on education? Or have worked as a bin man in order to have a view on council services?

No Janine you don't have to work in a field to have an opinion on it.

But it made me think; imagine if we had a government where ministers actually had portfolio for sectors in which they were expert. Just imagine that; an ex teacher politician running education, an ex surgeon running the NHS. Bloody hell now that might be utopia.

I don't understand why you need to run anything in order to have an opinion on a political party?Just why?

Didn't say that. I'm talking about political tolerance, not getting obsessed over who supports which party.

But forget the running anything. If a person does something with their lives, that I can look up to, I will be more likely to treat their views as being believable, rather than one person who has read a book or two, adopts it as their messiah and thinks everyone else should think the same, otherwise they are officially bad.

Political and indeed religious intolerance is one of the biggest problems in the world at the present time. Demonising anyone who dares to think differently, even slightly differently, is the usual tactic of the foot soldiers of intolerance.

I'm not convinced. This happens with some regularity in Ireland (where politicians have more of a normal life before entering parliament - in part the result of the precariousness of multiseat constituencies & PR and the relative absence of safe seats). For every Noël Browne (doctor appointed Min for Health on first day in parliament - attempted important reforms) there's a few James Reillys and Leo Varadkers (also doctors who served as Min for Health, slightly less successful).

Clegg lied
Cameron Lied
they all lie

I think voters are apathetic because none of the party leaders have any vision for the country. They don't seem to have a clue what direction they want to lead the country in. They are reactive rather than proactive. A lot of their policies are gimmicks based on what they think voters want rather than what will improve people's lives.
I'm not a Labour supporter but when Tony Blair was elected I respected the fact that he had a vision for the country and I think his leadership did do a lot until Iraq. I also think Mrs Thatcher thought she was doing the right thing for the country (I'm prepared for a roasting!). None of today's politicians are offering this. Where do they want us to be in 25 years time? No one has a clue. It's scary. This is a great country but I worry about the future for my children.

OP, there is no way you can post a thread bashing one of the main parties and ignoring the other main party.

The tories might be pushing the austerity cuts but do Labour actually know what an austerity cut is? They want more dependent on the State, not forgetting when they were in power the thousands of pointless newly invented public sector jobs monitoring this and that, appeasing tiny minorities. And then the Labour quangos, under Blair those rose by nearly 50% and cost billions of pounds. I certainly don't want to go back to those days.

And who can forget the Labour Treasury Secretary's note to his successor when the Tories won, saying "By the way, there's no money left." That just about sums up how Labour operate... this country would be bankrupt like Greece if labour got in, let's hope not. I wouldn't touch Labour with a bargepole.

The Op's post didn't really surprise me. I remember the same shit being said by Labour party supporters about Tory supporters when Kinnock was defeated in 1992 (comments like 'don't these people have children...') and thank God he didn't get in because he would have taken us straight down the toilet.

I think there is a choice here.

Worse in the short term or worse in the long term.

Basically whatever you vote then its not going to get any better for the foreseeable future.

I think saying stuff about moral compasses is bollocks.

The Torys might be cutting from the poorest. But Labour didn't plan for harder times and spent and borrowed without thought to the long term consequences. That's hardly considering the poor either.

The reality is at some point the was going to be a crunch point. If labour had a 'better' moral compass they would a) not borrowed as much and sorted out excesses and wastage and b) planned for the reality that the Torys would get in at some point and left the country in a state where cuts of this depth were much less likely to be a policy that the country had more of an argument against.

I laugh at the hilarity of Labours new policy on university fees, if its an example of how its going to improve things for the poorest. Its pretty obvious its a cheap trick to try and grab disillusioned Lib Dem voters. It will benefit student who end up earning the most in the long term, and won't make any difference to the poorest struggling with living costs now because of the way the system works. But it makes a great sound bite to anyone who doesn't scratch beneath the surface.

They are all as bad as each other.

I tend to vote for the LOCAL politician who will do the best for my local area rather than voting on national issues because that's the best choice I can make and the only one that's a positive decision in the current political climate.

But Labour didn't plan for harder times and spent and borrowed without thought to the long term consequences. That's hardly considering the poor either

Labours record for helping the poor is atrocious, The gap between poor and rich grew under labour like never before. They then flooded the country with millions of really poor immirgants!

We're a middle class family, my kids are likely to go to university but will probably have to borrow quite a bit. You'd think I'd go for a policy that would reduce tuition fees. No. I would rather see the government tackle the crisis in the affordability of housing as I think that will benefit all young people, not just middle class kids.
Samcro Blair told a lie to Parliament which led to a war which even today has serious repercussions and has made the world a more dangerous place. Stop trying to defend him.

The National Debt is almost double now to what it was in 2010!

Not only that George Osbourne is banking on massive personal borrowing in order to acheive his deficit savings. Here

What will happen then is people will be unable to pay their debts, not be able to spend in the shops, buy cars, houses etc, the economy will suffer and we will be right back in recession!