To think a lot of people don't really care about others?

[marymarkle]

By others I mean those outside their family and friends. I know there are exceptions. People who volunteer and go out of their way to do lovely things for others who need a helping hand.
But most people vote for the policies that benefit them and their family, don't care about things that harm the vulnerable if they are not part of that group, and won't go out of their way to help someone who is not a family member or friend.

If that is selfish then I assume you live on the bare minimum to give your money to charity? You have the cheapest, old car you have- zero holidays and never do anything "non-essential" with your money, eg. like get a hair cut.

My point is we could all be a little bit more thoughtful but I wouldnt class people as selfish for wanting to benefit themselves and their loved ones first (thats probably human instinct)
Re: Tax, look up the Laffer Curve theory- there is a point whereby you tax people too harshly society ends up with less.

DonCorlone Yes that is what I suspected. We are not high earners but doing okay. And I happily vote for those who help those who need the most help, way above anything that helps us.
So according to you I ma right. Most people don't really care about others.
And I do not understand that. It does make me sad.

Only there's a difference between a slight luxury and begrudging giving up a holiday to stop someone starving to death. I'm not suggesting everyone wear burlap sacks and know no pleasurable items.

I don’t want a compassionate government.

Compassionate policies are impossible as what is compassionate to one person isn’t to another. Pragmatism is what is needed,

I read some research in Freakonomics about an experiment carried out on people training to be vicars. They attended a lecture on the Good Samaritan that over ran. They had to get somewhere else together. On their way was a person asking for help. All but two rushed by and ignored them.
It was in a chapter saying that most people only help if it costs them very little to do so.

I don't think it's about selfishness v selflessness. People's wants and needs are sometimes conflicting, it's not selfishness to put some of those needs above others. In an ideal world we would not need to have controls on immigration for example. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and there is only so much to go around. I do care about others, a great deal. However I can understand why people vote conservative, people who own their own business, I'm not talking mega bucks but just enough to keep their family afloat, would be mad not to vote for a party that prioritises a healthy economy. Another example I always think of is an old bf of mine. His mother was very community minded and always invited members of her church to Christmas. He and his siblings hated it, they were often made to feel very uncomfortable. It's difficult because I can see his mother's point of view, it's a wonderful thing to do...but her own children's wants were put aside for it. We cannot look after everyone.

I know who worked in a public sector job & voted Tory...until they were made redundant

Well seeing as we have a conservative government I would imagine that a fair few public sector workers voted Tory, for varying reasons.

Most people don't really care about others

I don't really think that's true - but they can still think about themselves first, and that's fine. It's not selfish to put your kids first, your first responsibility is towards them. The money most of us spend on our kids school could probably do a hell of a lot in a deprived country, but we still help our own kids education first.

Seline My point is "paying a little more tax" is relative to a person and what they expect and what they consider a luxury. Obviously if you witnessed somebody struggling you could directly help you might but I wouldnt class people as selfish for not wishing to pay more tax.

Based on the threads on Mumsnet, I would suggest that a lot of people don't even have compassion for their own friends and relatives if they find themselves in a difficulty situation, so they certainly don't have compassion for strangers.

Yes treacle sadly that is true.

Only I think it's selfish. I enjoyed a very privileged upbringing, and even as an adult while not wealthy in my own right I know my parents will always support and help me. I had several holidays a year, a SAHM, endless extra curricular and never had to worry. Contrast that to DH who grew up a few miles away and has never had that and sometimes had no food in the fridge growing up. How's that fair?

Completely agree, and I would always support policies that have the biggest potential to better society as a whole, even if they might negatively affect me, e.g. paying more tax. I would also make decisions on a moral level to not partake in things I ideologically oppose, even if they could benefit me - so I'd never become a BTL landlord, I wouldn't send my kids to private school, and I'd rather give my own inheritance to a societal cause. I don't believe in keeping wealth within families and I'd rather abide by my own moral code than be a hypocrite. Many other people would probably support some policies like that in theory but not actually do it themselves because they don't want to lose out. Fine, but admit you're a hypocrite

snout Yes my parents have never bought their council house even though they would pay less in a mortgage than rent. They want the house to be available to someone else that needs it when they die.

I wouldn't send my kids to private school, and I'd rather give my own inheritance to a societal cause.

and I think that's terribly selfish! You are putting your own ideas above your children, who are only there because you decided to have them. I personally think it's a terrible way to think.

On their way was a person asking for help. All but two rushed by and ignored them.

But how many people did it take to help. It wouldn't be very helpful if they all fussed over the distressed person in a competitive do-gooder dance off.

But a lot of policies that are supposed to help the vulnerable are actually harmful in the long run. Communism is a brilliant example. On the face of it it should benefit the poor by redistributing wealth to them but long term it just makes everyone poorer. So both someone who votes for a communist policy and someone who votes against it may be trying to help the poor. If we were of apply this to British politics it’s would operate as follows. The British economy is screwed. The government is heavily in debt and the welfare state is not far from the brink of collapse. Not lowering taxes/reducing spending risks tipping the economy into free fall. This would impact everyone negatively but the most vulnerable would be hit worst because they generally have the least ability to deal with hard times (less earning potential, inability to get visas in other countries, little savings etc). So voting to cut welfare spending may be an attempt to preserve the welfare state for future generations but equally voting to increase welfare spending could be an attempt to alleviate the sufferings of the vulnerable short term despite that it would tip the whole system over the edge. But obviously this doesn’t apply to the way most people vote hence why public servants and those who receive benefits or services from the state typically vote for left wing governments for personal gain even if they like to make out that it is for the short term alleviation of suffering.

I do a lot of volunteer work and usually vote Conservative (although I have voted for labour in the past). But I'm amazed that people don't realise that JC hasn't a clue how to run a country and if he gets into power it will be an economic disaster and we'll have less money to give to the needy.

Just to be clear I am
In the camp that votes for personal gain (which slogans with what is best for the economy at the moment) but if both my DH and I became public servants I would vote labour.

This is mostly because I have options and can go elsewhere is Britain fails.

I think for a lot of people they're time poor, have less sense of a village because we lead busier, faster lives and we have less opportunity to show kindness on a daily basis. We're not growing up and living near to our families and childhood friends any more, we're focussed on instant gratification and money far more, and we're exposed to more of the world than any previous generation, so perhaps it has hardened us to other people's plights and causes.

When I was young and naive I used to think most people were nice. I'm now a lot older and wiser and I know better.

I think there are quite a few people who don't really care about their family or friends either.

Ha, racecar I always thought you were a man. I hope I didn't just think racecar=man but suspect I may have done now