Do people actually vote Conservative because they are snobs?

Giles Bandreth tested the folk of Guildford, a Tory stronghold, on the policies of Jeremy Corbyn, and found they were appalled to find that they agreed with him.  Which begs the question, do they vote Conservative for the snob value, somehow thinking it makes them a better class?

Some people say that labour supporters are patronising: they feel proud to be helping the "poor and underprivileged"

I think it's swings and roundabouts

I think that it's perverse to mock people who vote for policies they believe are going to help the less fortunate. If the government isn't there to help people, I don't see why we have them at all.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think that it's perverse to mock people who vote for policies they believe are going to help the less fortunate. If the government isn't there to help people, I don't see why we have them at all.

The government are supposed to be there to help ALL people. I'm not sure why LW's think rich people should be constantly punished for being rich. There's always that air about left politics.

Conservatives sell an image, not anything tangible. It is a carefully crafted image: handsome, square-jawed, blue-eyed, no-nonsense, war mongering, in-charge, successful capitalist...that does not exist except in the movies. It's not merely a different brand from the liberal, but it's a different product.

Liberals are far more pragmatic and in-tune. They want something for their money, more than a stereotype. That's why liberals always talk policies, while conservatives only talk jingles and slogans.

I want small and efficient state/govt, small bureaucracy etc... I am more than happy to pay taxes towards their being an authority to run public services and towards having a democratically elected lot of people in charge of it but then they must only be enacting the will of the electorate in directing the authorities... not as it is now where they seem to think they are elected to do what THEY want...

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think that it's perverse to mock people who vote for policies they believe are going to help the less fortunate. If the government isn't there to help people, I don't see why we have them at all.

The government are supposed to be there to help ALL people. I'm not sure why LW's think rich people should be constantly punished for being rich. There's always that air about left politics.

I don't think there are really that many LW politicians who believe in "punishing" the rich. There is an undercurrent of anger at the wealthy, sure -- but why is that? I think a lot of people perceive the wealthy as being at the root of many of the world's biggest problems.

I believe in taxing the rich more, because they can afford it while the poor can't. I believe in using government to rein in their outsize influence on the rest of the world. If they perceive that as "punishment" for being wealthy, I think that's a really childish stance for them to take.

On top of that, people who enhance the world they live in, like JK Rowling, are admirable people in my view. I have no problem with people getting richly rewarded for coming up with brilliant ideas that people like. I just have a problem with them thinking they should have more power than one vote in elections, and I have a problem with them thinking that paying a small percentage of their vast wealth toward helping people in need is "stealing" from them.

Tommy Monk wrote:I want small and efficient state/govt, small bureaucracy etc... I am more than happy to pay taxes towards their being an authority to run public services and towards having a democratically elected lot of people in charge of it but then they must only be enacting the will of the electorate in directing the authorities... not as it is now where they seem to think they are elected to do what THEY want...

So if that kind of system was in place and the will of the people was that black people should be hanged in public, would you still support it?

If people are going to vote conservative they may as well be voting to let a few coroprations run the country. LW opposition is about punishment, as Ben says its about sharing wealth to help those less advantaged, and stop powerful corporations abusing our environment, our economy and our people. The rich stay rich, and thats fine, but they should pay enough to help the country that gave them their chances in life.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think that it's perverse to mock people who vote for policies they believe are going to help the less fortunate. If the government isn't there to help people, I don't see why we have them at all.

The government are supposed to be there to help ALL people. I'm not sure why LW's think rich people should be constantly punished for being rich. There's always that air about left politics.

I don't think there are really that many LW politicians who believe in "punishing" the rich. There is an undercurrent of anger at the wealthy, sure -- but why is that? I think a lot of people perceive the wealthy as being at the root of many of the world's biggest problems.

I believe in taxing the rich more, because they can afford it while the poor can't. I believe in using government to rein in their outsize influence on the rest of the world. If they perceive that as "punishment" for being wealthy, I think that's a really childish stance for them to take.

On top of that, people who enhance the world they live in, like JK Rowling, are admirable people in my view. I have no problem with people getting richly rewarded for coming up with brilliant ideas that people like. I just have a problem with them thinking they should have more power than one vote in elections, and I have a problem with them thinking that paying a small percentage of their vast wealth toward helping people in need is "stealing" from them.

You do realsie that taxing someone more because they earn more is the reason why they hide their money in offshore accounts?

I'm kind of with you on taxing the rich more, but at the same time, I sort of think it is like punishing someone becasue they work really hard and earn lots of money...!
Not all rich people are evil...

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I don't think there are really that many LW politicians who believe in "punishing" the rich. There is an undercurrent of anger at the wealthy, sure -- but why is that? I think a lot of people perceive the wealthy as being at the root of many of the world's biggest problems.

I believe in taxing the rich more, because they can afford it while the poor can't. I believe in using government to rein in their outsize influence on the rest of the world. If they perceive that as "punishment" for being wealthy, I think that's a really childish stance for them to take.

On top of that, people who enhance the world they live in, like JK Rowling, are admirable people in my view. I have no problem with people getting richly rewarded for coming up with brilliant ideas that people like. I just have a problem with them thinking they should have more power than one vote in elections, and I have a problem with them thinking that paying a small percentage of their vast wealth toward helping people in need is "stealing" from them.

You do realsie that taxing someone more because they earn more is the reason why they hide their money in offshore accounts?

I'm kind of with you on taxing the rich more, but at the same time, I sort of think it is like punishing someone becasue they work really hard and earn lots of money...!
Not all rich people are evil...

Nobody is asking them to pay more than their fair share, and the majority did not get rich because they worked hard, they got rich because their family was rich, it was handed on, and once you have money it's easier to make more.

Anyway, that's not what the OP was about.  Those people were agreeing with all Corbyn's policies, but were horrified when they discovered that the policies were his.  Not because of the policies, but because they didn't want to be seen agreeing with Corbyn and socialist policies, that was beneath them.  They obviously felt that by agreeing they had let their 'class' down.  They weren't Conservative because they agreed with the policies of conservatives, they were conservative because that made them think they were part of the elite.

They are asked to pay more than their fair share - they're asked to pay a higher percentage of their earnings/interest, etc.

You have to think about the psychology of that. Regardless of where the money came from - from their own efforts or from an inheritance or luck, a lot of them are going to resent handing over such a large percentage to the Government - who didn't earn the money in any sense.

I thought I was posting in the offshore tax haven thread.

Put your glasses on lol

Anyway, it's not just rich or well off people who vote Conservative. They are generally known as the party who will take less in tax for those who are not rich, and there might be other reasons people vote for them - they might not approve of the nanny state or a benefit system which encourages people not to work, they might have a sense of responsibility for themselves rather than looking around for someone else to blame when things go wrong like lefties tend to do, etc.

sassy wrote:Put your glasses on lol

I've got them on!

Get them checked lol

sassy wrote:Get them checked lol

It's not that I misread the thread title, it's just that people were talking about tax, so I just assumed it was the other thread. Never mind, I can put the same post in there - unless I get accused of spamming of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:I thought I was posting in the offshore tax haven thread.

That's my fault as I mentioned offshore accounts on this thread

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I thought I was posting in the offshore tax haven thread.

That's my fault as I mentioned offshore accounts on this thread  

A very popular subject at the moment.

So it seems!

Anyway, I'm off to tesco to do a weekly shop - think I'll need to break into an offshore account just to pay for it.
Bloody prices are ridiculous!

eddie wrote:So it seems!

Anyway, I'm off to tesco to do a weekly shop - think I'll need to break into an offshore account just to pay for it.
Bloody prices are ridiculous!

Go to Aldi instead.

Raggamuffin wrote:They are asked to pay more than their fair share - they're asked to pay a higher percentage of their earnings/interest, etc.

You have to think about the psychology of that. Regardless of where the money came from - from their own efforts or from an inheritance or luck, a lot of them are going to resent handing over such a large percentage to the Government - who didn't earn the money in any sense.

All you are doing is pointing out the difference between proportional equality and distributive equality. Where the money comes from is crucial. What sassy is really pointing out is that people start with different advantages, which makes for an uneven--unequal--race. A proportional system of equality accounts or adjusts for those inequalities.

If the race is going to be made fair, no one has any basis for resentment except someone who thinks he is better than everyone else. George Orwell described that kind of thinking best: All animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others. It is the hidden assumption of privilege that sets us off-course.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They are asked to pay more than their fair share - they're asked to pay a higher percentage of their earnings/interest, etc.

You have to think about the psychology of that. Regardless of where the money came from - from their own efforts or from an inheritance or luck, a lot of them are going to resent handing over such a large percentage to the Government - who didn't earn the money in any sense.

All you are doing is pointing out the difference between proportional equality and distributive equality.    Where the money comes from is crucial.  What sassy is really pointing out is that people start with different advantages, which makes for an uneven--unequal--race.  A proportional system of equality accounts or adjusts for those inequalities.

If the race is going to be made fair, no one has any basis for resentment except someone who thinks he is better than everyone else.  George Orwell described that kind of thinking best: All animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others.  It is the hidden assumption of privilege that sets us off-course.

Someone might have exactly the same advantages or disadvantages, but they had drive and ambition and made some money, whilst others did not. I don't see why they should pay a higher percentage just because they took risks and used their brain. Those on low pay already have an advantage because they pay tax on proportionately less of their earnings.

Also, maybe someone lives in London, for example, so they have higher expenses and get paid more. If that takes them into a higher tax bracket, that's not really fair.

Eilzel wrote:If people are going to vote conservative they may as well be voting to let a few coroprations run the country. LW opposition is about punishment, as Ben says its about sharing wealth to help those less advantaged, and stop powerful corporations abusing our environment, our economy and our people. The rich stay rich, and thats fine, but they should pay enough to help the country that gave them their chances in life.

Did you not see the massive rise of g4s/crapita/serco being given public sector contracts under Labour. ..!?


Do you not know about the big leftie wank fest that is the eu and their ttip plans which WILL let corporations have power over national govts...!?

Raggamuffin wrote:Someone might have exactly the same advantages or disadvantages, but they had drive and ambition and made some money, whilst others did not.

But you start out violating your own assumptions...that they had the same advantages or disadvantages. The person who inherited had greater advantages by getting resources he never earned.

You are rewarding a person with less drive and ambition, or to restate it, penalizing the person with more drive and ambition. Not only is that not fair, but it violates a certain Darwinian advancement of society. We should be rewarding hard work and initiative.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why they should pay a higher percentage just because they took risks and used their brain. Those on low pay already have an advantage because they pay tax on proportionately less of their earnings.

Again, violating your own assumptions. Those who inherited didn’t take risks or use their brain; they were given their wealth. They received special coddling and undeserved reward, which is itself unequal. Furthermore, a society that rewards the lazy and shiftless, who put forth less effort, is not very efficient. It is unproductive.

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, maybe someone lives in London, for example, so they have higher expenses and get paid more. If that takes them into a higher tax bracket, that's not really fair.

Now you are getting into needs as well as efforts. That’s Marxism…remember, From each according to ability; to each according to need? As soon as you take into consideration disproportion, whether giving or challenging, you are advancing onto the notion of proportional equality.

It’s refreshing to see you putting forward Marxist ideas. It shows you have an open mind.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Someone might have exactly the same advantages or disadvantages, but they had drive and ambition and made some money, whilst others did not.

But you start out violating your own assumptions...that they had the same advantages or disadvantages.  The person who inherited had greater advantages by getting resources he never earned.

You are rewarding a person with less drive and ambition, or to restate it, penalizing the person with more drive and ambition.  Not only is that not fair, but it violates a certain Darwinian advancement of society.  We should be rewarding hard work and initiative.

I didn't say they had an advantage over anyone else, unless you count drive and ambition as an advantage. Those things aren't dependent on having money in the first place, or on having a good education. Your post makes no sense. Obviously, the person with more drive and ambition is likely to make more money than someone who does not. Why should they have to pay a higher percentage in tax?

Indeed we should reward initiative - and not by by overtaxing people who display initiative. As for hard work, well that depends on market forces. Someone can work hard and be paid less than someone else who works hard, depending on the demand for their services.

Original Quill wrote:

Now you are getting into needs as well as efforts.  That’s Marxism…remember, From each according to ability; to each according to need?  As soon as you take into consideration disproportion, whether giving or challenging, you are advancing onto the notion of proportional equality.

It’s refreshing to see you putting forward Marxist ideas.  It shows you have an open mind.

Needs aren't usually taken into account, but they are if someone is in London because of the much higher costs - ie, we have London weighting.

Raggamuffin wrote:I didn't say they had an advantage over anyone else, unless you count drive and ambition as an advantage.

You didn’t need to.  We are talking about inheritance.  Certainly you are not questioning whether being given wealth forthrightly is an advantage, are you?

Raggamuffin wrote: Those things aren't dependent on having money in the first place, or on having a good education. Your post makes no sense.

You need to concentrate.  Being given wealth forthrightly gives one a distinct advantage over others.  If we strive for a meritocracy, then inheritance interposes an artificial advancement; writ large, inheritance is privilege, not industry.

Raggamuffin wrote:Obviously, the person with more drive and ambition is likely to make more money than someone who does not. Why should they have to pay a higher percentage in tax?

Conversely, the person who receives an inheritance receives a benefit without having to demonstrate drive and ambition.  Why shouldn’t they have to pay a higher percentage in tax?  They have done nothing to earn it.

The real point is that society offers more benefits to the wealthy than to the poor.  If the wealthy own trucks, or more cars, they use the highways and bridges more.  If the wealthy own more assets, they depend upon the police and fire departments more.  Examples are infinite.

There is also an argument to be made on pure equity principles.  If a person makes more, he gets to enjoy the benefits of society with a lesser part of his income.  So we adjust for more in proportion to his enjoyment.

Raggamuffin wrote:Indeed we should reward initiative - and not by by overtaxing people who display initiative. As for hard work, well that depends on market forces. Someone can work hard and be paid less than someone else who works hard, depending on the demand for their services.

I agree.  So why reward inheritance?  The person who inherits just won the ovarian lottery, and that’s infrequent, but not hard.  There’s no initiative involved.  None of the social or economic theories work with them; there's no benefit to rewarding someone who inherits.

Would someone like to get back to the premise of the OP?

Quill, can you please stop splitting my posts?

I was NOT talking about inheritance. Quill, you need to concentrate on what I'm saying, not on what you think I'm saying, or what you would like me to be saying.

sassy wrote:Would someone like to get back to the premise of the OP?

Didn't you raise the issue of inheritance?

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:Would someone like to get back to the premise of the OP?

Didn't you raise the issue of inheritance?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point of the OP was that people were asked if they agreed with policies, not knowing whose policies they were.  The people were from a very upmarket area, agreed with the policies and then found out they were socialist policies and were appalled.   They obviously thought that agreeing with socialist policies degraded them in some way.

So, if they agree with those policies, why are they voting conservative?   Because it makes them feel part of the elite?

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, can you please stop splitting my posts?

No...I will not stop splitting your posts. I split your posts to treat each point individually. It's a time-honored method of analysis...the resolutive-composite method first devised by Galileo.

Perhaps if you did more taking apart of your own ideas you would understand them more. It may be hard work, but it is productive.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, can you please stop splitting my posts?

No...I will not stop splitting your posts.  I split your posts to treat each point individually.  It's a time-honored method of analysis...the resolutive-composite method first devised by Galileo.

Perhaps if you did more taking apart of your own ideas you would understand them more.  It may be hard work, but it is productive.

I might not bother to read them them, and, therefore, I won't bother to reply. It's not as if you actually replied to the bits you broke down - you went off at a tangent a few times.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didn't you raise the issue of inheritance?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point of the OP was that people were asked if they agreed with policies, not knowing whose policies they were.  The people were from a very upmarket area, agreed with the policies and then found out they were socialist policies and were appalled.   They obviously thought that agreeing with socialist policies degraded them in some way.

So, if they agree with those policies, why are they voting conservative?   Because it makes them feel part of the elite?

Maybe they just don't like Jeremy Corbyn.

sassy wrote:Nobody is asking them to pay more than their fair share, and the majority did not get rich because they worked hard, they got rich because their family was rich, it was handed on, and once you have money it's easier to make more.

I believe those are your words, sassy. You raised the issue of inheritance and thence the discussion of taxation ensued.

Discussions tend to take their own direction. If you'd like, you might post something that returns the subject to what you feel is the original discussion. If anyone is interested, and picks up on it, then you have affected the conversation in your way.

But these discussion need not be one-dimensional. Very often, several topics can be discussed side-by-side. Don't waste time talking about it; go ahead and try it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point of the OP was that people were asked if they agreed with policies, not knowing whose policies they were.  The people were from a very upmarket area, agreed with the policies and then found out they were socialist policies and were appalled.   They obviously thought that agreeing with socialist policies degraded them in some way.

So, if they agree with those policies, why are they voting conservative?   Because it makes them feel part of the elite?

Maybe they just don't like Jeremy Corbyn.

You vote for policies, but they obviously are stupid enough to vote for completely different reasons.  They idolise dickheads like Cameron because he's rich etc and never mind he's dumping on them from a great heights.  And because they do, we end up with a government that the majority don't vote for or agree with.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maybe they just don't like Jeremy Corbyn.

You vote for policies, but they obviously are stupid enough to vote for completely different reasons.  They idolise dickheads like Cameron because he's rich etc and never mind he's dumping on them from a great heights.  And because they do, we end up with a government that the majority don't vote for or agree with.

I don't think everyone does vote for policies, they vote for the party in which they like the leader and who they want to see as Prime Minister. We know this - this is partly why the Tories had such a bad run with some of their leaders, and it's why a lot of people voted Labour when Tony Blair was leader - IMO.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:Nobody is asking them to pay more than their fair share, and the majority did not get rich because they worked hard, they got rich because their family was rich, it was handed on, and once you have money it's easier to make more.

I believe those are your words, sassy.  You raised the issue of inheritance and thence the discussion of taxation ensued.

Discussions tend to take their own direction.  If you'd like, you might post something that returns the subject to what you feel is the original discussion.  If anyone is interested, and picks up on it, then you have affected the conversation in your way.  

But these discussion need not be one-dimensional.  Very often, several topics can be discussed side-by-side.  Don't waste time talking about it; go ahead and try it.

Yes Quill, as an aside because Rags diverted.   You can have as many dimensions as you like, I can multi-task quite happily.  I object if you never actually discuss the original point.

Even if I liked every single one of Corbyn's policies, I just don't like his lack of condemnation for the IRA - or what I perceive as his support for the IRA.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No...I will not stop splitting your posts.  I split your posts to treat each point individually.  It's a time-honored method of analysis...the resolutive-composite method first devised by Galileo.

Perhaps if you did more taking apart of your own ideas you would understand them more.  It may be hard work, but it is productive.

I might not bother to read them them, and, therefore, I won't bother to reply. It's not as if you actually replied to the bits you broke down - you went off at a tangent a few times.

Lol. I have serious doubts if you read them, anyway.

It doesn't matter if you wish to voluntarily drop-out of any discussion. It's as if you didn't enter the discussion. The choice is yours.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I believe those are your words, sassy.  You raised the issue of inheritance and thence the discussion of taxation ensued.

Discussions tend to take their own direction.  If you'd like, you might post something that returns the subject to what you feel is the original discussion.  If anyone is interested, and picks up on it, then you have affected the conversation in your way.  

But these discussion need not be one-dimensional.  Very often, several topics can be discussed side-by-side.  Don't waste time talking about it; go ahead and try it.

Yes Quill, as an aside because Rags diverted.   You can have as many dimensions as you like, I can multi-task quite happily.  I object if you never actually discuss the original point.

I diverted? I'm the only one who's been on topic for the last few posts.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


You vote for policies, but they obviously are stupid enough to vote for completely different reasons.  They idolise dickheads like Cameron because he's rich etc and never mind he's dumping on them from a great heights.  And because they do, we end up with a government that the majority don't vote for or agree with.

I don't think everyone does vote for policies, they vote for the party in which they like the leader and who they want to see as Prime Minister. We know this - this is partly why the Tories had such a bad run with some of their leaders, and it's why a lot of people voted Labour when Tony Blair was leader - IMO.

Which just shows that the electorate need to be educated voting and why to vote.  It's pathetic.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I believe those are your words, sassy.  You raised the issue of inheritance and thence the discussion of taxation ensued.

Discussions tend to take their own direction.  If you'd like, you might post something that returns the subject to what you feel is the original discussion.  If anyone is interested, and picks up on it, then you have affected the conversation in your way.  

But these discussion need not be one-dimensional.  Very often, several topics can be discussed side-by-side.  Don't waste time talking about it; go ahead and try it.

Yes Quill, as an aside because Rags diverted.   You can have as many dimensions as you like, I can multi-task quite happily.  I object if you never actually discuss the original point.

You are wasting time and effort. What did you want to say?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I might not bother to read them them, and, therefore, I won't bother to reply. It's not as if you actually replied to the bits you broke down - you went off at a tangent a few times.

Lol.  I have serious doubts if you read them, anyway.

It doesn't matter if you wish to voluntarily drop-out of any discussion.  It's as if you didn't enter the discussion.  The choice is yours.

I'll simply discuss the issue with someone else if I don't like your post splitting.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:


Yes Quill, as an aside because Rags diverted.   You can have as many dimensions as you like, I can multi-task quite happily.  I object if you never actually discuss the original point.

You are wasting time and effort.  What did you want to say?

I've already said it, in detail, and I'll be the judge of what I'm wasting or if I want to waste it.  Sometimes I like discussing with you, sometimes you are just so bloody pompous I want to stick your head under a tap!

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think everyone does vote for policies, they vote for the party in which they like the leader and who they want to see as Prime Minister. We know this - this is partly why the Tories had such a bad run with some of their leaders, and it's why a lot of people voted Labour when Tony Blair was leader - IMO.

Which just shows that the electorate need to be educated voting and why to vote.  It's pathetic.

It's the way it is. That's why it's important for a party to choose the right leader. They're simply not going to vote for a party if they really don't like the leader.