Brexit...

[MikeO]

8 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

And if they are so bad, why have they had more time governing the UK than any other party?

Because they've existed longer; founded in 1760 as opposed to the Libs/Lib Dems (1859) and Labour (1900). Ninety-nine year head start is helpful in this regard.

[holystove]

1 hour ago, Newty82 said:

Can I ask a genuine question...

I try my best not to be too left or too right, so I don't have any particular favoured party. Rather I've voted in the past based on what I feel is right at that time.

So why is it that the Tories are so bad for the UK? And if they are so bad, why have they had more time governing the UK than any other party?

Because you can be bad but still not worst.  I think May is incompetent but I wouldn't hesitate a second to vote for her over Corbyn.

[Newty82]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Because they've existed longer; founded in 1760 as opposed to the Libs/Lib Dems (1859) and Labour (1900). Ninety-nine year head start is helpful in this regard.

Ok. So let's just look at recent history with all current main parties in exsistence.

Conservatives have still been in power more. Haven't done the math, but it looks considerably more

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments?wprov=sfla1

But how can this be if they are so bad for the UK? Why hasn't Labour won every election? 

[Newty82]

29 minutes ago, holystove said:

Because you can be bad but still not worst.  I think May is incompetent but I wouldn't hesitate a second to vote for her over Corbyn.

Well that's how I feel just now. I'm a bit fed up of the Cons but when I see the Labour line up, I cringe. So what do you do?

I believe a change is good, that swapping every so often will bring balance for everyone. In my dreamworld anyway!!

Or is it just the human way? That whoever is in the hot seat, gets most mud slung at them? We know by our nature that people speak out more when they are unhappy than when they are happy.

[MikeO]

22 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

But how can this be if they are so bad for the UK? Why hasn't Labour won every election? 

Millions of people vote on what is best for them personally, probably the majority of voters; far fewer vote for altruistic reasons. Not wishing to blow my own trumpet here but I personally profited hugely from the Thatcher years but I never once voted for her, never even considered it. I'd have happily paid more tax to help those less fortunate than me. When she won her final term you could find nobody who'd admit to voting for her but enough, in the privacy of the ballot booth, voted with their wallet in mind rather than any thought for the misery she caused large swathes of the population.

[Newty82]

4 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Millions of people vote on what is best for them personally, probably the majority of voters; far fewer vote for altruistic reasons. Not wishing to blow my own trumpet here but I personally profited hugely from the Thatcher years but I never once voted for her, never even considered it. I'd have happily paid more tax to help those less fortunate than me. When she won her final term you could find nobody who'd admit to voting for her but enough, in the privacy of the ballot booth, voted with their wallet in mind rather than any thought for the misery she caused large swathes of the population.

This hints at only the rich vote for Cons. Does that mean we have more wealthy people in the UK? But the years Labour won, people were more skint? So Labour made them richer...then they voted Cons with their new found wealth?! Wouldn't they just stick with Labour?

[johnh]

32 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Ok. So let's just look at recent history with all current main parties in exsistence.

Conservatives have still been in power more. Haven't done the math, but it looks considerably more

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments?wprov=sfla1

But how can this be if they are so bad for the UK? Why hasn't Labour won every election? 

As someone who has lived through all post-war governments, there is a pattern.  The Conservatives tend to hold power for longer. The electorate get fed up (or in the case of the John Major government recognise that its a disaster) and give Labour a chance.  Labour then screw up, particularly on the economy (guaranteed) and give the Conservatives another run.  (This is keyed only partly tongue in cheek).

[Palfy]

11 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

This hints at only the rich vote for Cons. Does that mean we have more wealthy people in the UK? But the years Labour won, people were more skint? So Labour made them richer...then they voted Cons with their new found wealth?! Wouldn't they just stick with Labour?

No Margaret Thatcher introduced the right to buy and convinced the Labour heart land voters who bought their council houses your not working class anymore your a home owner you are now officially middle class, you are a Conservative you are better than working class and many were sucked in by it, and a form of snobbery developed but they won't admit to it.

And on a foot note I've voted Labour all my life still class myself as (working class) if you like, drink with the friends on the estate pubs I grew up on and went to school with, now I pay a three figure sum tax bill every year and have done so for many years but I'm true to myself, and not some sort of plastic snob which imo a lot of Conservatives are.

There you go Newty mate another rant, but on this occasion a heart felt rant.

[Newty82]

13 minutes ago, Palfy said:

No Margaret Thatcher introduced the right to buy and convinced the Labour heart land voters who bought their council houses your not working class anymore your a home owner you are now officially middle class, you are a Conservative you are better than working class and many were sucked in by it, and a form of snobbery developed but they won't admit to it.

So that was the Maggie Thatcher years, what's that 79 - 90? She enabled more people to get on the property ladder?! Labour supporters can be easily bought by home ownership eh?!

What about Pre and Post? When Cons have still Governed the UK more?

[Newty82]

26 minutes ago, johnh said:

As someone who has lived through all post-war governments, there is a pattern.  The Conservatives tend to hold power for longer. The electorate get fed up (or in the case of the John Major government recognise that its a disaster) and give Labour a chance.  Labour then screw up, particularly on the economy (guaranteed) and give the Conservatives another run.  (This is keyed only partly tongue in cheek).

I think I looked into this a few years ago and I'm sure there ends up being a problem with the economy under Labour most times they govern...I can't remember the exact details...do they just over promise beyond what is reality? Good for a few years but then the bills add up?

[MikeO]

4 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

What about Pre and Post? When Cons have still Governed the UK more?

Thatcher out of the equation they haven't (in my lifetime anyway); they've had nine years of overall majority against fifteen for Labour.

[Newty82]

15 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Thatcher out of the equation they haven't (in my lifetime anyway); they've had nine years of overall majority against fifteen for Labour.

Not just about your lifetime Mike!!!

Although that stretches quite a bit!!!

[Palfy]

6 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Not just about your lifetime Mike!!!

Although that stretches quite a bit!!!

[Palfy]

36 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

So that was the Maggie Thatcher years, what's that 79 - 90? She enabled more people to get on the property ladder?! Labour supporters can be easily bought by home ownership eh?!

What about Pre and Post? When Cons have still Governed the UK more?

I’m excercising my right to remain silent before the Conservatives take that away from me. 

[Newty82]

55 minutes ago, Palfy said:

And on a foot note I've voted Labour all my life still class myself as (working class) if you like, drink with the friends on the estate pubs I grew up on and went to school with, now I pay a three figure sum tax bill every year and have done so for many years but I'm true to myself, and not some sort of plastic snob which imo a lot of Conservatives are.

There you go Newty mate another rant, but on this occasion a heart felt rant.

Missed this before, did you do a cheeky add on?!

So what made you vote Labour? There must be a reason you've voted them all your life, no matter what? And there must be something which makes you spit at all things Cons?

Most of the country are working class, there is nothing unique there. And what you describe is the lifestyle of many UK citizens. So that's non decisive!

[nyblue23]

3 hours ago, Newty82 said:

Can I ask a genuine question...

I try my best not to be too left or too right, so I don't have any particular favoured party. Rather I've voted in the past based on what I feel is right at that time.

So why is it that the Tories are so bad for the UK? And if they are so bad, why have they had more time governing the UK than any other party?

I can’t speak to this with as much education about British politics generally, but I can say from a theoretical perspective that conservatives get the vote not only of rich white folks, but of uneducated populists as well. By virtue of limiting economic regulations, conservatives naturally assume the votes of the wealthy elite, who then get to pour money back into campaigns for their preferred conservative candidates (I’m not sure of contribution laws in regards to political candidates in the U.K., but I know that far more money was spent on the leave campaign than the remain).

Further, uneducated majority populations also tend to vote conservative for more populist and xenophobic reasons; Trump was elected largely because he appealed to the large swathe of working class white Americans who believe that immigrants are destroying the U.S. economy and, more specifically, muting their own individual chances of financial success. These folks tend to hold conservative social views that also more closely align with conservative parties on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion, etc., largely as a lack of education corresponds to stronger religious belief. This convinces them to vote against their own economic interests, and put faith in leaders with whose values they believe they align.

This means that progressive parties must rely on the votes of poor minorities (who don’t vote much in most Western countries), and the shrinking educated middle class in order to secure power.

There are obviously a ton of nuisances specific to each of our countries, but as income inequality grows and globalization increases, I think the situations are more and more analogous.

[MikeO]

14 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Not just about your lifetime Mike!!!

It isn'tt? Are you sure?

[Newty82]

1 minute ago, Palfy said:

I’m excercising my right to remain silent before the Conservatives take that away from me. 

They got a history of silencing critics have they?!!!

[Newty82]

Just now, MikeO said:

It isn'ttt? Are you sure?

Like football only started in 1992!!!

[Newty82]

Why do the Americans keep mentioning 'rich white men'? Are there no rich non white men in the UK?!!!

[johnh]

4 minutes ago, nyblue23 said:

I can’t speak to this with as much education about British politics generally, but I can say from a theoretical perspective that conservatives get the vote not only of rich white folks, but of uneducated populists as well. By virtue of limiting economic regulations, conservatives naturally assume the votes of the wealthy elite, who then get to pour money back into campaigns for their preferred conservative candidates (I’m not sure of contribution laws in regards to political candidates in the U.K., but I know that far more money was spent on the leave campaign than the remain).

Further, uneducated majority populations also tend to vote conservative for more populist and xenophobic reasons; Trump was elected largely because he appealed to the large swathe of working class white Americans who believe that immigrants are destroying the U.S. economy and, more specifically, muting their own individual chances of financial success. These folks tend to hold conservative social views that also more closely align with conservative parties on issues ranging from gay rights to abortion, etc., largely as a lack of education corresponds to stronger religious belief. This convinces them to vote against their own economic interests, and put faith in leaders with whose values they believe they align.

This means that progressive parties must rely on the votes of poor minorities (who don’t vote much in most Western countries), and the shrinking educated middle class in order to secure power.

There are obviously a ton of nuisances specific to each of our countries, but as income inequality grows and globalization increases, I think the situations are more and more analogous.

nyblue23, you are wrong about leave spending more than remain.  The government pamphlet that went to every household in the country with a recommendation to vote remain, cost just short of 10m pounds.

[Matt]

Just now, johnh said:

nyblue23, you are wrong about leave spending more than remain.  The government pamphlet that went to every household in the country with a recommendation to vote remain, cost just short of 10m pounds.

Hard to say he’s wrong when Leave have been found to fiddle the numbers and broke the laws regarding funding John

[johnh]

Just now, Matt said:

Hard to say he’s wrong when Leave have been found to fiddle the numbers and broke the laws regarding funding John

Well its like Financial Fair Play in football Matt.  Some get done for it and others who spend far more get away with it. Just depends on how its done.

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, johnh said:

Well its like Financial Fair Play in football Matt.  Some get done for it and others who spend far more get away with it. Just depends on how its done.

True. Looking into it a bit, seems Remain fiddled numbers 5 times worse  

just shows the incompetence of those involved 

[Newty82]

15 minutes ago, Matt said:

Hard to say he’s wrong when Leave have been found to fiddle the numbers and broke the laws regarding funding John

 

13 minutes ago, johnh said:

Well its like Financial Fair Play in football Matt.  Some get done for it and others who spend far more get away with it. Just depends on how its done.

 

10 minutes ago, Matt said:

True. Looking into it a bit, seems Remain fiddled numbers 5 times worse  

just shows the incompetence of those involved 

Interesting though isn'ttt it?

You've only heard about 'Leave' getting done for it in the media but not much of a sniff about 'Remain' being naughty?

Edit: Also interesting your response there Matt. Nice happy laughing face once you seen that Remain did so to. 

[markjazzbassist]

34 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Why do the Americans keep mentioning 'rich white men'? Are there no rich non white men in the UK?!!!

https://www.businessinsider.com/sunday-times-rich-list-2018-richest-people-uk-britain-2018-5#2-sri-and-gopi-hinduja-18

 

3 spots of 19 are people of color.  to answer your question, not many.  im sure someone could look up the demographics and up to a certain wage and it would be similar.

[nyblue23]

35 minutes ago, johnh said:

nyblue23, you are wrong about leave spending more than remain.  The government pamphlet that went to every household in the country with a recommendation to vote remain, cost just short of 10m pounds.

Fair play. Looks like both broke rules and it is hard to say. Regardless, no matter the lobbying and campaign contribution laws in any country, I think it’s fair to say that most would agree wealth brings political clout, influence and power.

[Newty82]

3 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/sunday-times-rich-list-2018-richest-people-uk-britain-2018-5#2-sri-and-gopi-hinduja-18

 

3 spots of 19 are people of color.  to answer your question, not many.  im sure someone could look up the demographics and up to a certain wage and it would be similar.

Have you looked at their country of origin?!!

Also, population proportion % need to be taken into account.

It's not a race thing. Might be in the US of A but I really don't think it is here. 

[Palfy]

29 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Missed this before, did you do a cheeky add on?!

So what made you vote Labour? There must be a reason you've voted them all your life, no matter what? And there must be something which makes you spit at all things Cons?

Most of the country are working class, there is nothing unique there. And what you describe is the lifestyle of many UK citizens. So that's non decisive!

In all honesty I was born into a Labour voting family, my grandads uncles and cousins on both my parents side of the family were miners in the north east, my father didn’t want that life and joined the RAF in 1937 as a 16 year old, he met my mother a about 2 or 3 years after the war my mum was working in the NAFFI on a base he was stationed at. 

When he left the RAF in 57 he headed back to Newcastle married me mum, he got a job on a mine but as a fitter but hated it then I come along in 59 and he decided to come south to make a better life for his family it took him 3 years to get settled in Swindon then me and mum joined him, they were both staunch Labour people but very caring and community minded do anything for anyone if they could. 

There ethos and ethics rubbed off on my brother and myself, and to this day we are both labour voters and for us it’s a with our conscience because we vehemently believe it’s a vote for poorest in our society and not just the wealthiest. 

And that wasn’t a rant mate that was the realist version of me you are going to get on here. 

[johnh]

7 minutes ago, Palfy said:

In all honesty I was born into a Labour voting family, my grandads uncles and cousins on both my parents side of the family were miners in the north east, my father didn’t want that life and joined the RAF in 1937 as a 16 year old, he met my mother a about 2 or 3 years after the war my mum was working in the NAFFI on a base he was stationed at. 

When he left the RAF in 57 he headed back to Newcastle married me mum, he got a job on a mine but as a fitter but hated it then I come along in 59 and he decided to come south to make a better life for his family it took him 3 years to get settled in Swindon then me and mum joined him, they were both staunch Labour people but very caring and community minded do anything for anyone if they could. 

There ethos and ethics rubbed off on my brother and myself, and to this day we are both labour voters and for us it’s a with our conscience because we vehemently believe it’s a vote for poorest in our society and not just the wealthiest. 

And that wasn’t a rant mate that was the realist version of me you are going to get on here. 

Glad you posted that Palfy, good post.