This post nails it about left wing voters on Mumsnet over the last two days

[ProudAmberTurtle]

It's by an ex-academic on X, about posts on Reddit over the last 48 hours but is equally applicable to Mumsnet, where I can seeing posts stating things like:

"How stupid are Reform voters? Don't they realise they'll get fewer benefits?!"

The irony is of course that it's those posters who need to be educated, not the working class voters they mock because they think they're thick.

Here you go:

Reading through Reddit threads in which leftists/progressives express their bewilderment/confusion/fury at working class English voters for casting their lot in with Reform, one of the things I'm starting to understand is this:

They simply do not understand how a government could help working-class people in any other way besides giving them benefits, handouts, and other free things.

Their entire mental architecture is premised upon the premises that

1. Working class people are poor
2. The only way for them to not be poor is for the state to give them free stuff
3. So left-wing parties need to promise them lots of free stuff

Then, when these working-class voters instead vote for right-of-centre parties who instead promise an economy in which they can build a career, start their own business, make a financial success of themselves and start a family, they're confused.

Because, again, in their mental architecture, what the working class are supposed to want is free benefits from the state.

But what they actually want is a fair shake at making their own way in the world, making money, getting on in life.

And the left simply doesn't understand that what these voters want from the state is an economy in which they can actually do this.

x.com/i/status/2053073719086469193

The compensation argument is bewildering - that was the political price of abolishing slavery. The fact that the UK was prepared to spend so much to abolish something shows how opposed to it it was.

Many members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords directly owned plantations in the Caribbean or had deep financial ties to the slave trade.

it was not that the British government were opposed to slave trade, they were concerned more about economic collapse

The British economy was deeply entangled with colonial plantations, which supplied vital commodities like sugar, coffee, and cotton.
Government officials genuinely feared that if they stripped plantation owners of their workforce overnight without a financial cushion, it would cause a domino effect of bankruptcies. They worried this would collapse major British banks, ruin shipping merchants in cities like Bristol and Liverpool, and spark violent rebellions or white settler revolts in the colonies. The compensation was designed to act as a massive economic bailout to keep the empire's financial system stable.

You quoted a bit of my post, so I take it you want me to reply ? You did not tag me.

So you seem to have a single issue that is the driving factor. Trans rights V GC rights ?

I did link the UN declaration of Human rights in my post, because the poster I was replying to mentioned it. I think it is article 29 that applies:

"Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

The bit I bolded. Basically saying that rights can only be limited by law, if those rights impact others rights.

Do you not agree that this can be a complex rule to apply? It takes time and a lot of working out. And here you are posting about it on a political thread. Posting your opinion. Is that not you playing a part in the "working it out"

And if that is your single voting issue, then vote for the party that you agree with on it.

Here is the Reform website. I can't find what they say about Trans, but I am sure there is an up to date policy, What I found on other sites is that they align with you.

Policies | Reform UK (reformparty.uk)

If they match your single issue, then vote for them.

Re shutting conversation down. I posted a link to a UK political party that are campaigning on right to far right policy. I would not call that "shutting down".

So you seem to have a single issue that is the driving factor.
You are the one who asked for "just one" issue!

Why are you so pro-trans? You said, "I am on the pro science/anti religion side".
So what is so "complex" and needs "time and a lot of working out"?

You have ignored the "cultural" question.
It seems to be a common trick of yours, to ignore bits of an argument that you don't like. It's like trying to debate with a TRA.

The left used to be good. I used to be one of them! But now with trans, open borders, critical race theory, net zero etc, they've really lost the plot. In fairness, there are some on the left who recognise this and what to do something about it, especially when they see trade union members supporting Reform.

So - left leaning governments and people are in favour of giving people handouts rather than trying to help them into work? It is the exact opposite.

What the left say is that people should have opportunities, but for those in genuine need the safety net should be easily accessed and stigma free.

I worked with people with disabilities and many many people fail to apply for benefits they qualify for, either through pride or ignorance of their entitlement.

So - left leaning governments and people are in favour of giving people handouts rather than trying to help them into work? It is the exact opposite

Pat McFadden: Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others'.

I never said I am pro anything.

Quote : :"You have ignored the "cultural" question."

Nope. I addressed that. I said there is a political party, Reform. campaigning on that. I even linked their website. It is a good indicator that something has not been shut down when there are folk on soap boxes and on telly literarily campaigning on it.

Quote : " It seems to be a common trick of yours, to ignore bits of an argument that you don't like."

I just asked what part of UK culture people are not allowed to do any more. And I am not getting much in the way of solid answers. No tricks involved.

Quote :" It's like trying to debate with a TRA."

I have no idea. Debate on what subject ? I can't say I pay any attention to how people identify when I am involved in or watching debates. It's what is being said about the subject that matters.

Play the ball and not the player.

Going back a bit though. Where you said " Civilised debate is shut down. People have lost freedom of speech: they self-censor for fear of repercussions."

Do you mean like this :

Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker banned from UK hours before festival | News UK | Metro News

Then yeah. I can see potential issues there. But TBH, it's a fair few years since I have followed Cenk. And Husan I don't know about. I am sure there was good reason for the ban. Last time I watched TYT Cenk was verging into conspiracy territory.

Do you object to these speakers being banned ?

Nope. I addressed that.
No you didn't.
It's pointless trying to debate with you. I'm out.

Quote : " It's pointless trying to debate with you. I'm out."

So you are shutting down the debate ?

After you posted "Civilised debate is shut down."

I've got better things to waste my time on than:
-someone who won't debate in good faith
-someone who lives abroad trying to mansplain my country to me

Lots of ad hominems in your posts.

Mansplaining ? Really ?

open boarders - I thought we had the least net immigration this year under a left ish government ?

As for net zero, long term gain will be far better for everyone, less deaths, cheaper fuel source etc. I don't see that as losing the plot but long term planning to get away from fossil fuel dependancy

Trans my views are very different from left wing, as for critical race theory - its much the same as misogamy with it being built in to the way we live as a society even down to medicine and imo needs to be changed. Endometriosis is a case that definitely needs to be changed and an example of how woman are treated with a system built by men.

Contrary to what Badenoch claims, welfare spending has actually been higher than income tax receipts since at least 2013/14

who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others'.

A bit simplistic!

In a civilised society we support those in need and governments quite rightly have to look at how this can be properly funded. Taxation is one way.

It stopped being about 'need' and became about 'entitlement' a long time ago.

Can you outline what you mean?
If someone is in need they rightly have an entitlement in law to assistance.
It is true that many people are entitled to help they never receive because they do not have thebright information.
The word entitlement has acquired a negative connotation but in the context of benefits it is simply a description of the law.

In a civilised society we support those in need and governments quite rightly have to look at how this can be properly funded. Taxation is one way.
Totally agree but there is more to Government than tax&spend. The full quotation is: "Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others'. They're asking the wrong questions."
They're asking the wrong questions - they should be aiming for growth and prosperity, not taxing jobs out of existence.

I am not disputing what you say, and I could look it up but won't, but my reaction seeing your post was " of course".

Take the pensions out for this, but the way I see it is surely benefits paid out is good for the economy in general ? Because benefits paid out mostly go straight into the economy. The benefits are spent buying things, instead of being put into banks. So the money is mostly circulating. Minus the bits that go to private landlords and such.

Now if a Tory government cut benefit spending to give a tax cut, there is no guarantee that the extra money in the taxpapers pocket would be spent. Certainly not in the local economy.

So logically, there must be a sweet point in terms of paying benefits ? In order to keep money circulating.

It’s pretty damning for Labour.

Some economists believe that tax and spend is the route to prosperity.

Non-means tested benefits for a start.

My 70 year old with a fully paid 4 bed house, 100k of savings in the bank and £900 something a month state pension.

DLA and PIP - you can claim while being a millionaire. I've seen several posts on MN with OPs saying they don't need the money they're claiming for their teenager so what should they do? posters encouraging them to save it so it'll go towards a house deposit.

A woman I know with 10 kids, living in social housing, raking in thousands a month in benefits including DLA as has a disabled child. Planning her 11th baby and thinks it's all fine because her husband works hard.

Another woman I know with 6 kids who gave up a part-time job because she was only £100 better off a month when compared to her UC claim.

A poster I saw who was claiming almost 4k a month in benefits while working part-time as her rent was very expensive and she had a disabled child so no benefit cap.

Another poster claiming several grand a month while her husband earns 67k a year. Again, because she had a disabled child so no benefit cap. That poster wanted advice on claiming more benefits as was doing some caring for MIL.

The posters who ask about how to legally make sure they're always under the 16k savings allowance for some benefits.

And in all those examples you get some posters saying 'wow that's a lot of money you're claiming there' while others say 'you're entitled to it OP' or 'not OPs fault she can claim so much, it's the system' 'would you like to swap places and have a disabled child? OPs life must be hard, she deserves that money'.

There's some examples where it's changed from 'need' to 'entitlement'.

What about the billions in unclaimed benefit each year?

https://policyinpractice.co.uk/publication/missing-out-2024/

Universal Credit: Around £7.5 billion to £9.6 billion is left unclaimed by eligible households.
Council Tax Support: Up to £2.8 billion is missed out on by millions of people.
Carer’s Allowance: Approximately £2 billion goes unclaimed annually.
Pension Credit: Around £1.7 billion in benefits goes unclaimed by hundreds of thousands of eligible pensioner

this is annual unclaimed benefits

@RedTagAlan

The 1789 declaration and the UN declaration are different texts ... the UN didn't exist in the 18th century. Call it ad hominem if you want 😆

You remind me of the FILTH acronym back in the day
"Failed in London, Tried Hong Kong"

So you wont say what cultural things you are not able to do any more, nor reply to the points I made in my reply to you.

Yet apparently it is the left wing that is shutting down discussion. And here I am, working class left wing being shut down?

I hate Reform but I agree with you on some of the attitudes towards their perceived voters. It's Brexit all over again. How dare the oiks vote differently to right thinking people.
The chattering classes or whatever they are called these days just don't get how working class people could actually have legitimate reasons for wanting significant change, because they are not suffering the effects of the system as it is. It's easier to smear them all as racists/ thick/ on benefits than engage with them as individuals. I think it's very dangerous.