This is amazing, explains Tory twattery in such a simple way ;)

[ApocalypseCheeseToastie]

ENJOY !

Thanks Cake. I nicked it from Sky News . Their reporter, Peter Spencer, didn't talk about ransoms but said something like 'be careful what you wish for.' He's a mischievous soul. I doubt his line will get picked up.

I do support the public sector strikers, but I can see the bind it puts the Labour front bench in.

So currently I'm enjoying Cameron's behind-the-scenes appeals to his traditional supporters to be reasonable for the sake of his approval rating the country.

good god, the thought that wild generalisations are the province of the right wing only is absolutely hilarious

limitedperiodonly's above post about the fact that you can only be a Tory if you are stupid or trying to aspire to be somehow better than yourself is breathtaking in it's arrogance. And, dare I say it, typical of the left's ability to combine intellectual snobbery with rampant stupidity.

limitedperiod's post doesn't say you can only be a Tory if you are stupid or trying to aspire to something. It merely refers to those Tories who are one of the above. Disclaimer- I am sure there are 'stupid' supporters of every party.

Why the need to be so defensive? Why not just get stuck in and have a good old debate? :)

limited Miliband is only in a bind because he won't do what Callmedave does - represent his (cover your ears) class

cake has saved me the trouble of re-addressing the point of my post. I'll just clear something else up for you Humph with one of many anecdotes from my experience.

During the 1992 election campaign, the Conservatives, who were trailing, unveiled a brilliant bit of advertising at the last minute.

Chris Patten came up with the idea of Labour's Tax Bombshell which was supposed to hit anyone earning over £30,000 pa.

Not actually true once you took into account taxable allowances, child and other benefits, mortgage relief and tax relief on savings etc. But not essentially untrue if you didn't take the trouble to look into it.

Posters of a big WW2 bomb went up all over the shop. I remember debating it with a colleague who was very worried about it. I said I didn't know what her salary was, but I did know her grade and that she needn't worry because she was earning far short of £30,000 pa anyway.

She got very angry with me for being able to work out the obvious and told me that: 'but one day I want to be earning that and Labour will stop me.'

That wasn't part of the campaign but that was her extrapolation. I have no proof, but I'm guessing there were many other people who didn't look at things closely either, and I'm guessing that's what Chris Patten thought too.

I'm also guessing that's why in the 1997 campaign Labour made such a big thing of being in favour of business just in case people hadn't got the message.

No-one could say that New Labour wasn't in favour of free enterprise, sometimes not to my liking, but the misconception that they were less enthusiastic than the Conservatives was finally nailed.

That's why I said this:

I understand people voting Tory because it's in their interest. I'll never understand people who vote Tory because it's the interest group they long to belong to.

The logical decision would be to wait until you've joined that band.

But it's a free country. People are entitled to make all sorts of irrational decisions. And I'm entitled to wonder what on earth is going on in their heads.

So, do you want to have a debate based on things that people have actually said, or do want to continue railing against things you think they've said?

by your post you imply that people only vote tory because it's the interest group they long to belong to. Or because they are rich and want to protect their wealth I disagree on the basic principle that you can only want to vote tory if you want to put other people down. It is not the case, and not why I consider myself right wing.

Perhaps I don't tend to enter into much debate on here because I get called a cunt for my views, or because it is funny to talk about how shooting me would be fine. It is tiring. Although I AM always happy to have a discussion.

Actually in 1992 I would never have considered myself to be a tory voter. I have changed throughout the years.

It is possible to be right wing in your economic views because you are an economic libertarian rather than because of self interest.

Humphrey - You have obviously decided to ignore the actual content of limitedperiod's post, despite two of us clearly pointing out that you had made a mistake, so there is not a great deal more I can say to you.

I vote the way I do in general elections (which is usually, but not always Tory) based on a combination of factors - the national interest is always at least as important as my personal/family interest, and usually far more so.

To give some examples: the Tories want to cut the unions down to size - which I regard as an unalloyed positive for the country as a whole. Unlike Labour, they will reduce public sector waste, which is excellent news. They believe the deficit is the most important economic metric - an analysis I share. Unlike Labour, the Tories don't hate our history, heritage and institutions (the BBC quite rightfully excepted). Unlike Labour, they don't hate our wonderful military. They might screw up the delivery of policy, or be pathetic compromisers like Cameron - but at least their core values are in the right place.

I despise socialism. I have nothing but contempt for left-wing politics. Fortunately, when it comes to economic policy, throughout history the right has won the battle of ideas time and time again.

so are you saying that you acknowledge there are people who vote Tory because they think it is genuinely the right thing to do? And that might have nothing to do with self interest (in so far as voting for the best idea is in everyone's self interest)? I realise, on re-reading my post, that I should not have namechecked one poster as my problem is with a multitude of widely held opinion on mumsnet.

People want less taxation for more reasons than just wanting to pay less tax on a personal level. I would have agreed with Limitedperiod's colleague now even though I don't earn enough either as I don't want a high tax society. It doesn't all have to be about naked self interest.

Okay humphrey let's get some things straight.

1. I've never spoken to you before so therefore have never called you a cunt. Neither have I ever expressed a desire to shoot you. Please take that issue up with the people who've done that rather than raising it in connection to one of my posts in case casual observers think I've called you a cunt or expressed violent tendencies towards you, which wouldn't be true, would it?

1. You have misunderstood my views on those people who vote Conservative despite their personal circumstances. It has been explained to you three times, once by someone else - thanks cake. I'm not going to explain this to you again;

1. It's clear from my posts that I believe people can and should be able change their vote from election to election. My point is that you should at least wait till you're in sight of the winning post before changing horses;

1. Yes, I know what an economic and social libertarian is. I'm one. But still I find my political allegiances are broadly left wing. If that changes I'll let you know. I'm sure it will make for a fascinating debate.

Sorry, humphrey x-post.

I covered the notion that you might vote against your interests in the hope of forming a future society that you or others might participate in when I said this:

I'm also guessing that's why in the 1997 campaign Labour made such a big thing of being in favour of business just in case people hadn't got the message.

No-one could say that New Labour wasn't in favour of free enterprise, sometimes not to my liking, but the misconception that they were less enthusiastic than the Conservatives was finally nailed.

Does that answer your questions?

Sorry cake for not replying to your point. I got distracted.

I differ from your view on Hester's bonus because if it's an agreement he's reached with his employers then he shouldn't be forced to turn it down.

He's an employee, better paid than most employees, but essentially no different to them.

If he agrees to turn it down then where will every other employee stand with their agreements/contracts? Should they accept less money for the good of the country? How good will it do the country if they can't afford to buy anything and therefore drive the economy?

It's a race to the bottom and tens of millions of people will be competing for last place.

Employers should respect contracts/agreements. If it's a dire emergency then those contracts/agreements should be renegotiated.

But if Hester's agreement isn't being renegotiated then why should anyone else's be?

Perhaps someone should ask Gideon and Dave.

I understand people voting Tory because it's in their interest. I'll never understand people who vote Tory because it's the interest group they long to belong to.

The logical decision would be to wait until you've joined that band.

But it's a free country. People are entitled to make all sorts of irrational decisions. And I'm entitled to wonder what on earth is going on in their heads.

This article goes some way to explaining why:

Bash the poor and wave the flag ? how this Tory trick works

In a move imported from the US right, the Conservatives have successfully induced people to vote against their own interests

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/27/bash-poor-wave-flag-tory-trick

lnf-

To give some examples: the Tories want to cut the unions down to size - which I regard as an unalloyed positive for the country as a whole.

You regard this as so because you're nasty and right-wing, not because it would be better for the country as a whole; the power of the unions in this country is probably the weakest in europe, and anti-union legislation is the strongest. Not co-incidentally, the UK has amongst the worst workers rights.

Unlike Labour, they will reduce public sector waste, which is excellent news.

By that, I'm guessing, you probably mean workers wages, rather than subsidising businesses, bailing out banks, paying the 'Queen' millions in welfare every year, and buying the royal family yachts.

Want to reduce the deficit? Start with tax evasion which costs the UK tens of billions of pounds every year.

They believe the deficit is the most important economic metric - an analysis I share.

Firstly, they don't believe that. They say that because they want to reduce the size of the state to make way for businesses and to reduce wages. As I've shown before, the Tories are just as likely to run a deficit as New Labour - both governments have done so almost all of the time in the past 50+ years.

Unlike Labour, the Tories don't hate our history, heritage and institutions (the BBC quite rightfully excepted).

Neither do most parties in europe, left or right, but they don't aspire to live in the past - unlike the Tories, who are trying to take the UK back, socially and economically, to Victorian times.

Unlike Labour, they don't hate our wonderful military. They might screw up the delivery of policy, or be pathetic compromisers like Cameron - but at least their core values are in the right place.

Core values? Tory core values? Like shitting on the poor? Stealing from the poorest to give to the rich? Privatising every public service for profit? Cronyism? Sexism? Racism? I'm sure even you would be disgusted at some of the values of the Tory Olde Guarde in Parliament.

I despise socialism. I have nothing but contempt for left-wing politics. Fortunately, when it comes to economic policy, throughout history the right has won the battle of ideas time and time again.

Wrong again:

humancapitalleague.com/Home/19545

Well, they can't call them cunts, can they?

longfingernails: don't make me laugh.

The Tories don't care about the military any more than the other parties do. In recent years, every major swingeing cut to the forces - including now - has come in under the Tories.

They're just better at faking it.

Yes, they tend to be deluded.

They read the Daily Mail and worry that immigrants are swamping the country to claim luxurious benefits when this is false.

They read the Daily Mail and worry that public spending on hospitals, education, nurses, doctors, binmen, firemen, etc. have gold plated pensions and are receiving too much pay from the state, when public pensions have historically been much lower than private pensions, and public expenditure is lower than most of europe.

They read the Daily Mail and worry that 'The Unions' have too much power and hold the country to ransom, when 50% of Tory party funding comes from the City, and anti-Union legisilation in this country is the strongest in europe, and it's harder to strike than in most other countries.

The gross conservativism in this country is one reason why it appears to be stuck in the 19th Century socially, and still has a huge class division problem and one of the highest wealth (and wage) inequality gaps of any developed Western country (second only to the US).

ttosca - you need to provide evidence.

'They read the Daily Mail'

Well I can't fault them on that.

'ttosca - you need to provide evidence'

Not more copy and pasting from the Guardian, surely.

This is from Jonathan Freedland's artoicle linked by ttosca

'For several decades, at least since Nixon, the right has persuaded middle- and lower-income Americans to vote against their own economic self-interest, by diverting their attention to "values" issues such as affirmative action, abortion or the sanctity of the flag. Upending the old rule that people vote with their wallets'

What Freedland doesn't seem to realise is that not everybody shares his values and not everybody "votes with their wallet". Most voters vote on principles on many other issues than their narrow economic interest. They are not all materialist Marxists.