Calling all Tories. Why do you Tory?

Rascal said:
I 100% agree with that, as much as I despise Thatcher she never did anything approaching what this shower of cunts have done. What she did though mate was change the mindset from One Nation Conservatism (which i quite admire) to the neo-liberal Toryism we see today, Cameron, May and Johnson are all children of Thatcher who have taken her vision further. Blair had the majority and the support to reverse Thatcherism, but he failed as well in that regard and helped lay the foundations for what we are witnessing today.

Its not just on here though that there are people who will not condemn the callousness and irresponsibility of this Government, they are still polling above Labour. Its why i started this thread, I really want to understand why and how people can support Johnson, he has been comfortably the worst PM i have ever known and that includes Thatcher.

I watched a thing last night with Peter Oborne, the right wing newspaper columnist and at least he is scathing about Johnson and the lies he tells, so maybe the worm is starting to turn. I fucking hope because this country is going to hell in a handcart under this shower of cunts.
Click to expand...

Disreali one nation conservatism, was porbably the closest they every came to having some empathy with their citizens daily grind, though it was still very much a heirarchy where you knew your place.

As for that witch, the only thing I can credit her for is that she actually believed in her ideolodlgy and stuck to it, none of this changing with wind and popular choice, a politician that stood by their (to me warped) principal, but.
She destroyed the postwar dream that Britain could be one that used capitalism in principle to grow while maintaining a socialist ideas and compassion for those not lucky enough to be in the power and resources-owning elite. In other words, she made Britain look a lot more like the US while fawning over ubercunt Reagan.
We are still suffering from this america-lite, neo-liberal approach, as societally we are not in tune with it, we have a heirarchy system and as much as any politician says they want to make us classless, that can only start at the top with removal of symbols of class such as a monarch, house of lords etc.
Blair & cameron, are products of the shift and if the inevitable crash hadn't happened we would still be enthralled with this ideology

But what we have seen more recently is a semi retrun to one nation conservatism, for someone like johnson it makes sense, give the lower classes some scraps some reforms and support as it keeps them sedated, while re-arfirming the patriacal need of an establishment to look after them. I do though believe unlike Disreali who thought it a duty to be PM, johnson saw his old rival cameron do it and became a goal rather than a conviction.

On a seperate note the last few years conseravatism leading up to and getting through brexit leaned heavily on their WDU campaign in the early 20th century playing upon nationalosm and fear of Britians soveriegnty, that campaign, at the time also became popular amongst the working class, so to assume it could happen again isn't calling anyone thick or easily impressionable, but just concerned with the future and being given a idealistcised and enticing answer to it.
 
Last edited:
Ric said:
Christ, this is like pulling teeth. In the 2019 GE the Tories had approx 48% of the working class vote, and approx 43% of the middle/upper class vote. However, the working class accounted for a smaller proportion of the electorate than the other demographic, so 48% of a smaller group is not a greater amount of voters than 43% of a larger group, in terms of actual numbers. Hence why I disputed your claim that “the majority of people who voted Tory in 2019 were working class”. Surely this isn’t that difficult to comprehend?
Click to expand...
Where did you get those statistics from?

It is like pulling teeth I am only going to give it one more go and then I am leaving it...

The study said the Tories have more votes from lower incomes than they do higher, so the people voting for them in lower income groups is the biggest group voting for them.

I have sent it 3 times now, hopefully you’ve slept on it and the beers have worn off ;-)
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
He’s decided on his opinion. It doesn’t matter what you think. He is right.

This is why we are where we are. “Intelligent” people run with a trend of thought and can “justify” it.

Social media is a curse on us all and isn’t going away.
Click to expand...
Stretching it a bit.
 
As per usual the forum bullies have shown up.

Utter saddos that follow people around the forum making snide comments because they cannot actually argue the point.

All of them have told me I’m on ignore to them but it’s obvious they cannot help but just read my posts, weirdos.

The reason I am right is because the study literally says this:
The Conservatives are now more popular with people on low incomes than high incomes.
Click to expand...
 
Ban-jani said:
As per usual the forum bullies have shown up.

Utter saddos that follow people around the forum making snide comments because they cannot actually argue the point.

All of them have told me I’m on ignore to them but it’s obvious they cannot help but just read my posts, weirdos.

The reason I am right is because the study literally says this:
Click to expand...

Only thing I could disagree with is you seem to be, and if you are not then appologise for my error.

But you seem to be equating C2DE as being only the working class, where 25% of those the NRS put into that catagory are considered middle class .

While 41% of ABC1 consider themselves working class

NRS grade and social class correlation-01.png

These stats are also from Yougov survey done just before the election.

So as can be seen bothe NRS and Yougovs own stats, though a good guide are not diffinative proof of anything.

One thing we do know is many in working class traditional areas voted to "get brexit done" I doubt the party who promised that would have mattered in Dec 2019.

Using usual means to measure the GE 2019 tory/lab political loyalty is pointless.
 
Last edited:
urban genie said:
Only thing I could disagree with is you seem to be, and if you are not then appologise for my error.

But you seem to be equating C2DE as being only the working class, where 25% of those the NRS put into that catagory are considered middle class .

While 41% of ABC1 consider themselves working class

View attachment 9837

These stats are also from Yougov survey done just before the election.

So as can be seen bothe NRS and Yougovs own stats, though a good guide are not diffinative proof of anything.

One thing we do know is many in working class traditional areas voted to "get brexit done" I doubt the party who promised that would have mattered in Dec 2019.

Using usual means to measure the GE 2019 tory/lab political loyalty is pointless.
Click to expand...
You make a very good point and I said on the other page it does depend on how we measure the working class, I have made my point via income group rather than self identification, as you could have someone from a working class area, who has moved to leafy Cheshire and is in the top 2% of income earners, still identifying as working class.

But then again, could CDE’s be the sons and daughters of an A and therefore be classed as middle class.

I do appreciate it’s complex but I feel the only real way we can do it is by judging higher income vs lower, because that gives us a decent idea of who’s voting what based on their current situation.

Anyway I appreciate the reply, maybe the forum bullies could read it and learn how to post like adults.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
That is utter nonsense that says you mustn't have been around at the
time, and you are simply telling us what your political views are, and
reinforcing that with dreamt up scenarios that are far from the truth.
I'm not going into a discussion about Thatcher, but if you were a family
at the early part of her tenure, the social security rates were far lower, pro
rata than today, the rates were the same as when Labour left.
You really struggled then, todays social security rates are far above those, it's very easy to go to you gov, type in a typical family, and the rates
are clearly displayed. I agree that the Universal Credit caused. and still
is in some cases. problems, but it's a far more efficient system than before.
Click to expand...

Bore off you utter twerp.

I was replying to Rascal.

I said if YOU were to write a post about what was wrong with Thatchers government. Ie if RASCAL was. Upset you did it, that some people don’t see your idol the way you do? Bless.

Social security rates have always been low, for obvious reasons, but whatever other criticisms can be made of Thatcher’s government, and whatever else she privatised, she never privatised the obligation to feed the people who couldn’t feed themselves.

Your world view seems to be that sending people to the charitable sector so they can feed themselves is a good thing. Do tell me if I’m wrong about that. And do explain why it is acceptable for the government to fail in that most basic duty.
 
Ban-jani said:
I already did.

The Tory’s 2020 January budget was the biggest investment in public spending since about 2005.

Their furlough scheme is the most left wing economic policy in the lives of anyone on this forum, obviously in an emergency.
Click to expand...

That’s twice in two nights that you posted some utter bollocks after posting some sensible stuff throughout the day. Maybe it’s time to step away from the keyboard when you’ve had a drink.

I’m sure in the cold light of day you appreciate that nothing that you posted, and nothing you could ever post, justifies the government of the day in not feeding its people.
 
Chris in London said:
That’s twice in two nights that you posted some utter bollocks after posting some sensible stuff throughout the day. Maybe it’s time to step away from the keyboard when you’ve had a drink.

I’m sure in the cold light of day you appreciate that nothing that you posted, and nothing you could ever post, justifies the government of the day in not feeding its people.
Click to expand...
Rather than deploying the tactics of the bullies on here, why don’t you actually say what’s wrong with my post and try and counter it?

The early 2020 budget, before Covid was the highest increase in public spending since Blair’s government. It’s not a controversial statement at all, it’s the truth.

Rishi Sunak ditched a decade of Conservative economic orthodoxy on Wednesday and claimed the Tories were now “the party of public services,” as he turned on the spending taps with a £30bn package that leaves Britain on course to have a bigger state than under Tony Blair’s Labour governments.
Click to expand...


Your problem is you’ve convinced yourself the Tories want to starve people to death and you cannot look beyond that. So when I give you facts that show there’s a difference between Cameron’s government and this one, you can’t see beyond your own red mist.

For the record I had a drink last night but I wasn’t really pissed. You’ve got no excuse to post the above at this time.

Now do you want to try and tell me why it’s bollocks and I am wrong, or do you want to continue shouting at me?
 
Ban-jani said:
Rather than deploying the tactics of the bullies on here, why don’t you actually say what’s wrong with my post and try and counter it?

The early 2020 budget, before Covid was the highest increase in public spending since Blair’s government. It’s not a controversial statement at all, it’s the truth.




Your problem is you’ve convinced yourself the Tories want to starve people to death and you cannot look beyond that. So when I give you facts that show there’s a difference between Cameron’s government and this one, you can’t see beyond your own red mist.

For the record I had a drink last night but I wasn’t really pissed. You’ve got no excuse to post the above at this time.

Now do you want to try and tell me why it’s bollocks and I am wrong, or do you want to continue shouting at me?
Click to expand...

No, my problem is not that I’ve convinced myself that the tories want to starve people to death. That’s either a deliberate misstatement of my position on your part, or a misunderstanding of it. I’ll let you be the judge of which, but neither is particularly impressive.

My position is that it is morally wrong for any government to refuse assistance to the neediest in our society. The fact that in other areas they do better does not excuse the fact that it is now government policy to turn people in need away and send them to food banks.

Do you deny that that is what is happening? Do you say that foodbanks are not necessary because anyone in a crisis situation can access government funding? Do you understand that food banks exist to meet the shortfall that government choices have created? Do you say that emergency funding, crisis loans, hardship payments and other short term emergency measures are available and people are just too lazy to access them?

Try to focus on the existence of foodbanks, because that is the fundamental issue I am discussing. There should be no need for their existence other than in a handful of cases where people are unable or unwilling to engage with the state. They have become, in ten short years, a necessity for hundreds of thousands of people. Are you really okay with that state of affairs? Whatever else they do right, whatever else they do wrong, it is immoral for any government to refuse to feed its people when they cannot feed themselves. The fact that people have to go to them, because the government will not help, is proof without need for further evidence that the government is breaching its most basic obligation to its people. The fact that it complies with other duties, eg the duty to defend the realm, or ensure the streets are policed, does not excuse this basic failing.
 
Chris in London said:
No, my problem is not that I’ve convinced myself that the tories want to starve people to death. That’s either a deliberate misstatement of my position on your part, or a misunderstanding of it. I’ll let you be the judge of which, but neither is particularly impressive.

My position is that it is morally wrong for any government to refuse assistance to the neediest in our society. The fact that in other areas they do better does not excuse the fact that it is now government policy to turn people in need away and send them to food banks.

Do you deny that that is what is happening? Do you say that foodbanks are not necessary because anyone in a crisis situation can access government funding? Do you understand that food banks exist to meet the shortfall that government choices have created? Do you say that emergency funding, crisis loans, hardship payments and other short term emergency measures are available and people are just too lazy to access them?

Try to focus on the existence of foodbanks, because that is the fundamental issue I am discussing. There should be no need for their existence other than in a handful of cases where people are unable or unwilling to engage with the state. They have become, in ten short years, a necessity for hundreds of thousands of people. Are you really okay with that state of affairs? Whatever else they do right, whatever else they do wrong, it is immoral for any government to refuse to feed its people when they cannot feed themselves. The fact that people have to go to them, because the government will not help, is proof without need for further evidence that the government is breaching its most basic obligation to its people. The fact that it complies with other duties, eg the duty to defend the realm, or ensure the streets are policed, does not excuse this basic failing.
Click to expand...
Hang on, just reverse a second, you have just come on this morning and gone in two footed on what I said last night. Calling it total bollocks and stating I was drunk and need to not post when I’ve had a drink.

All for what, me saying that actually the last Tory budget before Covid changed everything was the highest increase in public spending since Blair’s days?

I then backed it up with an article, from an anti-Tory newspaper no less, that contained statistics that showed the state was set to grow and to potentially levels even beyond Blair’s days.

Now you’ve chosen to sidestep that and rant about what you’ve constantly done for two days.

I am not being dragged in to hyperbolic rants that do not focus on facts, they focus on emotions based on opinion. I’ve just shown you why what you’re saying is wrong of this government and why Sunak’s position differentiates significantly from Osbourne’s ideology.
 
Ban-jani said:
Hang on, just reverse a second, you have just come on this morning and gone in two footed on what I said last night. Calling it total bollocks and stating I was drunk and need to not post when I’ve had a drink.

All for what, me saying that actually the last Tory budget before Covid changed everything was the highest increase in public spending since Blair’s days?

I then backed it up with an article, from an anti-Tory newspaper no less, that contained statistics that showed the state was set to grow and to potentially levels even beyond Blair’s days.

Now you’ve chosen to sidestep that and rant about what you’ve constantly done for two days.

I am not being dragged in to hyperbolic rants that do not focus on facts, they focus on emotions based on opinion. I’ve just shown you why what you’re saying is wrong of this government and why Sunak’s position differentiates significantly from Osbourne’s ideology.
Click to expand...

I’ve had enough of this. What I’ve said is perfectly clear, and as you’re a bright bloke I refuse to accept you can’t understand the point that the need for sections of the population to access foodbanks is an unacceptable failure of government whatever else they do.

Have a nice life.
 
Chris in London said:
I’ve had enough of this. What I’ve said is perfectly clear, and as you’re a bright bloke I refuse to accept you can’t understand the point that the need for sections of the population to access foodbanks is an unacceptable failure of government whatever else they do.

Have a nice life.
Click to expand...
You couldn’t even bring yourself to retract what you first posted to me this morning.

I refuse to believe it’s a black and white scenario, that is all I have said.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend, especially the football.
 
Chris in London said:
Bore off you utter twerp.

I was replying to Rascal.

I said if YOU were to write a post about what was wrong with Thatchers government. Ie if RASCAL was. Upset you did it, that some people don’t see your idol the way you do? Bless.

Social security rates have always been low, for obvious reasons, but whatever other criticisms can be made of Thatcher’s government, and whatever else she privatised, she never privatised the obligation to feed the people who couldn’t feed themselves.

Your world view seems to be that sending people to the charitable sector so they can feed themselves is a good thing. Do tell me if I’m wrong about that. And do explain why it is acceptable for the government to fail in that most basic duty.
Click to expand...
And you piss off, you know nowt. You said at least the Thatcher era fed everyone, or words to that effect, whoever you were talking to, I was actually criticising her, as I was there at the time, and many folk were really suffering, as your benefits
were fucking miserly, have you ever claimed, were you around then?
Tell us what you got, or any experience of someone you knew at the time,
and check the current yougov rates now.
I knew fucking plenty around that time who were absolutely skint, doing odd
jobs whilst claiming the pittance you got then on the sly, and fair play to them. My world view isn't 'sending' anyone anywhere, it's based on experiences at the time, tell us what yours are.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
And you piss off, you know nowt. You said at least the Thatcher era fed everyone, or words to that effect, whoever you were talking to, I was actually criticising her, as I was there at the time, and many folk were really suffering, as your benefits
were fucking miserly, have you ever claimed, were you around then?
Tell us what you got, or any experience of someone you knew at the time,
and check the current yougov rates now.
I knew fucking plenty around that time who were absolutely skint, doing odd
jobs whilst claiming the pittance you got then on the sly, and fair play to them. My world view isn't 'sending' anyone anywhere, it's based on experiences at the time, tell us what yours are.
Click to expand...
Bore off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top