To think that some left-wing supporters are just so NASTY

[cathf]

This is based on posts I have read on here and a couple of very vocal left-wing friends I have on facebook.
I have truly never read a Conservative supporter personally attacking Labour in the same way.
I find it astonishing and if I am honest, a bit childish.
Recent examples include a website pulling Teresa May's living room apart and costing out every single thing in it, to a chorus of comments along the lines of how can she sleep at night when children are hungry and she has a £25 candle.
Every time the subject is raised on here, there is a long thread of hysterical comments about how nasty the Tories are. Yes, Tory supporters state their case and answer back, but they seem to be able to do it in a more restrained, mature manner than outraged Labour screamers.
There seems to be a lot of personal bile aimed at Teresa May, which I am at a loss to understand - just what has she done that is so terrible?
She is pushing through Brexit, but that was what the country voted for. Is she supposed to go against the country's wishes?
All of Labour's policies look very lovely, but none have any substance at all. My friend recently stated on Facebook she was supporting Jeremy Corbyn because he wanted peace not war. And? How is he going to implement that then? It reminds me of the 1980s T-shirts stating War is Stupid. Lots of nice words, but to implementation strategies.
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people seem to be so brainwashed by this nonsense and think that flinging mud is an appopriate way to behave.
Is it just me?

My main bone of contention with the left is that in a rush to prounounce they have they have the morally praiseworthy perspective on any given issue. They fail to see the cognitive dissonance in their views. Care about the environment? Great wonderful I can respect that, so presumably we should reduce the rate of consumption? Ok so presumably you are against government debt increasing national consumption and immigration from third world countries where an individual going from a negligible rate of consumption starts to match that of the native population? Oh wait your in favour of deficit spending and unfettered immigration? Oh ok you were never serious about the environment we're you? Oh you ARE? Gah!! I can't wrap my head around it at all.

I could respect anyone being pro-environment, pro-immigration and even pro-deficit spending but it's physically impossible to juggle each and every ball with the morally admirable outcome at once without them all getting dropped eventually.

This whole tax the rich only works so far in 2012 (as that's the only figure I have in my head ATM) that was brown so it's likely gone down since but the top 10% of earners were contributing half the generated amount of income tax and of that 10% the top 1% provided half of that.

Now it's all well and good shouting tax the rich but the rich in those circumstances have a tendacy to fuck off after a point to countries that offer them better tax breaks.

I also don't happen to subscribe to the view that wealth is deposited like mana from heaven and the evil wealthy run around with bigger bags hoovering it all up. Oftentimes the wealthy are investing and starting buisnesses that are generating that wealth.

I am resolved this year to read up on Marx and Adam Smith as actually my comprehension of economics is sorely lacking, but I recall in the wealth of nations the idea is that past a point the wealthy need to be encouraged and motivated to start tackling public works and social problems. I don't know much but I know trying to shame them and guilting them into it hasn't worked so far, and actually as I said above you can't force them through tax as they'll just leave.

I have voted Tory but I wouldn't for a moment deny the existence of real poverty in Britain. I am also not of the view it is because they are lazy. Which is why I will be looking for ways to ameliorate it through donating time and resources of my own. I don't trust any government to look after its people properly. Whilst I was more than a little impressed with Corbyn as despite disagreeing with him politically he struck me as an honest man, but has since revealed himself to be as capable of spin and empty rhetoric as any other politician.

Someone upthread asked for a single morally praiseworthy Tory MP, even just historical. I'll give you Tobias Ellwood who tried his damndest to resuscurate the policeman who was stabbed a few weeks ago outside parliament.

I have voted Tory but I wouldn't for a moment deny the existence of real poverty in Britain. I am also not of the view it is because they are lazy
Thank you Dervel

I'll also give you Ken Clarke. He's a good man.

I know nothing extra of Tobias other than his actions recently so couldn't comment further but it was a human face of goodness.

"the rich in those circumstances have a tendacy to fuck off after a point to countries that offer them better tax breaks."

Rich bankers and Russian gangsters like to live in a country which is pretty safe, with good schools and services, and a fairly honest police force, and something to keep their trophy wives occupied. They like their servants and suppliers to be honest and law-abiding, literate and competent, and free from disease. So they need a country with a decent education, legal and health system. They are anxious not to be assassinated by rival gangsters, or to have their wealth seized by the government, or to have their family kidnapped, or to have dishonest builders and architects building their mansions.

That's why they come to the UK.

Very few of them go to low-tax Somalia or Uzbekistan.

Tony Newton was very supportive of care and care work.

I have to say though - bar the odd abusive comment I don't think the OPs point holds true on MN for this election.

People are mostly (from what I can see) being quite respectful of differing views.

@HelenaDove that is desperate I will have to apply for PIP in the future and dreading it. Your poor DH and you, being made to jump through hoops!

I think there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's views and being personally insulting or threatening which thankfully I have seen very very little off on here.

Ta Granny Im hoping that no news is good news. Im sorry you are going to have to go through it

David Burrowes has stood up for human rights, specifically in the cases of Gary McKinnon and my brother so he's decent in that sense. My old drama teacher used to be the Tory MP in my area and he's a top notch person, certainly don't think all Tories are bad.

To be fair there's some excellent, decent hardworking MPs across all the parties, it's just a shame they're not all in the same one!

"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
Thomas Sowell

If you're left leaning, there's nothing stopping you from giving all your money away to those poorer than you, but it doesn't make you virtuous to force everyone else to do so as well.

Copper if they were all in the same one it would make the choice a darn sight easier for the electorate.

"Agree about tax credits though. People coped before them perfectly well, and they were only introduced just over a decade ago, so people needn't start going on about how wages were waaaaay higher before, them and that is why people coped.. Yeah wages did used to be way higher, but pre 1980's, not the early 2000's. "

Income supplement in one form or another has been around since Ted Heath's Conservative Government in the 70s. They just had a different name - I think John Major's version was "Family Credit", iirc.

''Money is like muck, no good unless it be spread'' Sir Francis Bacon

Haven't rtft (but will do now) but I agree OP. The arrogance and aggression of the hard left has contributed to the destruction of Labour imo. I'm a centrist but feel pressure to maintain an outwardly leftist persona because it's just not worth the hassle of an argument in the office, in the pub, on social media etc.

The Left seems to be surprised at the 'political shocks' of the last few years. If people weren't so blinkered, these shocks wouldn't be, well...shocking.

Right

The Sun, Daily Mail, Times, Telegraph, Express, Star.

Left

Mirror, Guardian.

There is no print edition of the independent

Irrelevant, paper sales are on the decline and most people have smart phones and interact on social media, this is not the bogeyman your looking for.

It is for the older generations pre baby boomers. My 81 year old dad is influenced by what he reads in the Mail.............although he never bothers to vote.

Newspapers use social media. The mail online is hugely popular. There is no bogeyman just good old fashioned bias and propaganda.

Generally speaking, in the 'old days', a child might read the newspaper of choice in his or her house and absorb those values. Now that print media isn't as popular, there is a greater choice. It's not really necessarily about influence but articles agreeing or going against your particular stance confirm that what you think or feel is right so therefore you naturally seek them out.

To put it another way, if the Mail and the Sun et al ceased to exist as from tomorrow, I don't think people would start reading the Guardian and start to agree with the stance it takes on most things. So the Mail is reflecting people's beliefs, rather than leading people's beliefs.

It's an interesting pattern though that I've seen on here before - that people are so easily led they need 'protecting' from the Mail, from the Sun, from the referendum even. I suppose it stems from people's convictions being so utterly unshakeable that they feel that they are right, correct, and therefore having an election or referendum or any form of advertising during those democratic decisions is inherently wrong, a little bit like how some supermarkets removed sweets from the checkouts to avoid children tantrumming. The idea seems to be that people will only want to vote the Tories in / leave the EU / like Farage if they see it promoted in some way, by newspapers, buses, posters. That leads to a strange sort of "don't ask, don't want" mentality.

It's not something I agree with. The rise of UKIP reflected people's concerns. They didn't start to slowly infiltrate the minds of innocent beings, concerns relating to immigration levels (justified imo) were reported in the press, admittedly sometimes in a more sensitive manner than others.

If people really were just that stupid and easily influenced then they would be as likely to be influenced by the Mirror as by the Mail.

Of course newspapers influence people. They set the agenda and narrative. That's what people subsequently talk about. It's the sun wot won it. Murdoch doesn't buy papers because he likes crosswords.

Yes, but I think you've missed the wider point I'm making a bit there

I have not said "newspapers don't influence people" - what I have said is that in most cases, newspapers confirm people's line of thought rather than challenge it.

If every right wing paper in the U.K. had ceased to print as of 2010, do you think we would have a Labour government now?

So, pinkandwhite, what do you think the Express and Mail are trying to do here? 'Reflect concerns'? Or stir up hatred?

Apart from 'The Invaders' headline they look like perfectly reasonable reporting on migration and it's effects Brexshit. Do you just want censorship of any none positive reporting on migration.

Brexshit, I think they do reflect concerns, yes!

Primarily they focus on numbers and numbers are both where the concerns stem from and continue to lie. Yes, there are a tiny minority of people who dislike anyone who isn't white British, but i don't think most people are like that.

It is a numbers game, really. There was a huge upsurge in the levels of migration to the U.K. in the mid 2000s and the population levels soared accordingly. Suppose those headlines had been found to be stirring up hatred and accordingly banned: do you think people would have smiled benignly and said "ah, okay, that's fine because the Guardian says they are good for the country" - because I am afraid I don't!

One mans "reflect" is another man's "inflame"