FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tory party
Tory party
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? " There was an article recently that suggested party membership has been dropping slowly over time for all parties. There are the odd bumps here and there when people joined the Tories because of Brexit, or people joined Labour because of Corbyn. I'm not sure the last 13 years of self serving politics has played a part in it. I wouldn't be surprised either way. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? There was an article recently that suggested party membership has been dropping slowly over time for all parties. There are the odd bumps here and there when people joined the Tories because of Brexit, or people joined Labour because of Corbyn. I'm not sure the last 13 years of self serving politics has played a part in it. I wouldn't be surprised either way. " As I understand it a lot of Conservatives joined the Labour party so the nationally unelectable Corbyn could be elected Labour leader. Once they had done that they all buggered off.  | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? There was an article recently that suggested party membership has been dropping slowly over time for all parties. There are the odd bumps here and there when people joined the Tories because of Brexit, or people joined Labour because of Corbyn. I'm not sure the last 13 years of self serving politics has played a part in it. I wouldn't be surprised either way. As I understand it a lot of Conservatives joined the Labour party so the nationally unelectable Corbyn could be elected Labour leader. Once they had done that they all buggered off. "Happened the other way around. After he was elected leader, lots of young people joined. There was a huge surge in membership. If you remember, in his first election he made a lot of ground on the Tories. Taking away their majority. Then the press destroyed him in a sustained campaign. Anyway, the point is, over the longer time, since Thatcher, party membership has dropped across the board. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? " Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump" The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? " . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. | |||
| |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. " if only they had turned up when they voted in Truss. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. " Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. | |||
| |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. " Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. | |||
"I do wonder what the future is for them given that they are becoming more and more extreme within a shrinking party " How have they become more extreme? | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. " BS It was a one trick pony - Brexit that gave the majority. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut." I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. | |||
"I do wonder what the future is for them given that they are becoming more and more extreme within a shrinking party How have they become more extreme?" Hurricane! | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric." *********************************** "Propaganda..."? "Culture wars...."?? "Anti-immigrant rhetoric......"??? Are you not 'mixing up' the television series.... 'rise of the nazis'...., with mainstream news and current affairs...??!! | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. *********************************** "Propaganda..."? "Culture wars...."?? "Anti-immigrant rhetoric......"??? Are you not 'mixing up' the television series.... 'rise of the nazis'...., with mainstream news and current affairs...??!! " Propaganda: Propaganda is the dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. Culture wars: a conflict between groups, especially liberal and conservative groups, that have different cultural ideals, beliefs, or philosophies. Anti-immigrant rhetoric: "hurricane of immigration" Sadly not mixing up with the "rise of the Nazis" I haven't seen it, but are you suggesting the current government are similar? | |||
| |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. " . Have you any evidence of actual austerity or does it simply exist in a fantasty world ? Have you spoken to anyone on Universl Credit or those claiming housing benefit . Have to ever attended any tribunals . Had you done this you would recognise that benefits cover most people's day to day living expenses. Your rent is paid in addition to an amount to cover day to day living expenses. Maybe instead of criticising the government you should be analysing the expenditure on social welfare all of which is funded by the taxpayer. Sometimes in life you have to face reality. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. . Have you any evidence of actual austerity or does it simply exist in a fantasty world ? Have you spoken to anyone on Universl Credit or those claiming housing benefit . Have to ever attended any tribunals . Had you done this you would recognise that benefits cover most people's day to day living expenses. Your rent is paid in addition to an amount to cover day to day living expenses. Maybe instead of criticising the government you should be analysing the expenditure on social welfare all of which is funded by the taxpayer. Sometimes in life you have to face reality. " That’s quite amused me Pat  | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. . Have you any evidence of actual austerity or does it simply exist in a fantasty world ? Have you spoken to anyone on Universl Credit or those claiming housing benefit . Have to ever attended any tribunals . Had you done this you would recognise that benefits cover most people's day to day living expenses. Your rent is paid in addition to an amount to cover day to day living expenses. Maybe instead of criticising the government you should be analysing the expenditure on social welfare all of which is funded by the taxpayer. Sometimes in life you have to face reality. "  bless | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. . Have you any evidence of actual austerity or does it simply exist in a fantasty world ? Have you spoken to anyone on Universl Credit or those claiming housing benefit . Have to ever attended any tribunals . Had you done this you would recognise that benefits cover most people's day to day living expenses. Your rent is paid in addition to an amount to cover day to day living expenses. Maybe instead of criticising the government you should be analysing the expenditure on social welfare all of which is funded by the taxpayer. Sometimes in life you have to face reality. " | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. " so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place " I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place " Or in the same (small) boat?  | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile?" That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. " Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people." Who told you that and who is promising that? | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people." You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. Who told you that and who is promising that?" Is that not the general aim of everyone with empathy? No one is promising it, that I know of. This is your line of questioning, not mine. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years?" Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. " I think you need to look up what austerity means and then go have a look at Govt spends (in real terms). You may be a little confused. | |||
Populist principles can be divisive and may well divide the party further. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. " . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society " Live in the real world mate. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society Live in the real world mate. " n 2022/23, Government spending 2022/2023: social protection £327 billion health £217 billion general public services £168 billion. Social protection covers housing benefit, pensions, and supporting people who are at risk of exclusion from society, such as those on low incomes or refugees. As I have mentioned no government is going to make poor people rich, slightly less socially poor at best. Not enough money and no will from the public to share their efforts. People should stop relying on the government as the way out of their personal circumstances, a helping hand if needed but not a reliance. | |||
"Government spending 2022/2023: social protection £327 billion health £217 billion general public services £168 billion. Social protection covers housing benefit, pensions, and supporting people who are at risk of exclusion from society, such as those on low incomes or refugees. As I have mentioned no government is going to make poor people rich, slightly less socially poor at best. Not enough money and no will from the public to share their efforts. People should stop relying on the government as the way out of their personal circumstances, a helping hand if needed but not a reliance. " ************************************* Good factual post, thanks. There's seemingly far too many people today thinking the world owes them a living. (Eva's opinion based on life experience) | |||
"Government spending 2022/2023: social protection £327 billion health £217 billion general public services £168 billion. Social protection covers housing benefit, pensions, and supporting people who are at risk of exclusion from society, such as those on low incomes or refugees. As I have mentioned no government is going to make poor people rich, slightly less socially poor at best. Not enough money and no will from the public to share their efforts. People should stop relying on the government as the way out of their personal circumstances, a helping hand if needed but not a reliance. ************************************* Good factual post, thanks. There's seemingly far too many people today thinking the world owes them a living. (Eva's opinion based on life experience)" Do those people get mobility scooters?  | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society Live in the real world mate. n 2022/23, Government spending 2022/2023: social protection £327 billion health £217 billion general public services £168 billion. Social protection covers housing benefit, pensions, and supporting people who are at risk of exclusion from society, such as those on low incomes or refugees. As I have mentioned no government is going to make poor people rich, slightly less socially poor at best. Not enough money and no will from the public to share their efforts. People should stop relying on the government as the way out of their personal circumstances, a helping hand if needed but not a reliance. " ideally helping hand, but that's complex. Pensioners are (arguably) too late on the day to find their own way out. Homelessness etc is multifaceted. Sickness and disability creates its own challenges. And while one may argue you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford it .... that would create a lovely little employment hole later that affects is all. (or increases the need for immigration) However where does things like education fall on all this? I relied on the government here. And health care. My parents won't have earned enough to have paid the tax to cover these costs. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? " It dipped after majors antics. Labour picked up during corbyn. But a lot of member fell Into arrears. I think you could also vote on the £3 membership for a while then they reverted back to £25 I think overall memberships fell because for years you got nothing but pro e.u when clearly there was discontentment toward that and populist parties gained more members | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society Live in the real world mate. n 2022/23, Government spending 2022/2023: social protection £327 billion health £217 billion general public services £168 billion. Social protection covers housing benefit, pensions, and supporting people who are at risk of exclusion from society, such as those on low incomes or refugees. As I have mentioned no government is going to make poor people rich, slightly less socially poor at best. Not enough money and no will from the public to share their efforts. People should stop relying on the government as the way out of their personal circumstances, a helping hand if needed but not a reliance. " Not sure why you put all that. Not to worry though, instead you can tell me how people are meant to manage when they aren't covered by the so-called safety nets of the benefits system. | |||
| |||
"Sunak was today asked why we should vote Conservative at the next election , he said "for change " " Amazing. Still, it'll work. People will vote Tory in droves. | |||
"Sunak was today asked why we should vote Conservative at the next election , he said "for change " Amazing. Still, it'll work. People will vote Tory in droves." Stockholm syndrome is a very real condition.  | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society Live in the real world mate. n 2022/23, Government spending 2022/2023: social protection £327 billion health £217 billion general public services £168 billion. Social protection covers housing benefit, pensions, and supporting people who are at risk of exclusion from society, such as those on low incomes or refugees. As I have mentioned no government is going to make poor people rich, slightly less socially poor at best. Not enough money and no will from the public to share their efforts. People should stop relying on the government as the way out of their personal circumstances, a helping hand if needed but not a reliance. Not sure why you put all that. Not to worry though, instead you can tell me how people are meant to manage when they aren't covered by the so-called safety nets of the benefits system." Because you dismissed the comments of the post with a flippant “live in the real world mate” You now have the facts and they support the poster you were replying to. I don’t need to tell you how people should manage, just as I don’t expect you to tell me why they can’t manage. No amount of wishful thinking will convert the uk voter into sharing their earnings or savings, you will also have people who try and fail, try and succeed. It is personal life, not a government life | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society Live in the real world mate. n 2022/23, Government spending 2022/2023: social protection £327 billion health £217 billion general public services £168 billion. Social protection covers housing benefit, pensions, and supporting people who are at risk of exclusion from society, such as those on low incomes or refugees. As I have mentioned no government is going to make poor people rich, slightly less socially poor at best. Not enough money and no will from the public to share their efforts. People should stop relying on the government as the way out of their personal circumstances, a helping hand if needed but not a reliance. Not sure why you put all that. Not to worry though, instead you can tell me how people are meant to manage when they aren't covered by the so-called safety nets of the benefits system. Because you dismissed the comments of the post with a flippant “live in the real world mate” You now have the facts and they support the poster you were replying to. I don’t need to tell you how people should manage, just as I don’t expect you to tell me why they can’t manage. No amount of wishful thinking will convert the uk voter into sharing their earnings or savings, you will also have people who try and fail, try and succeed. It is personal life, not a government life" I'll be flippant again then - you too should live in the real world. There will always be people who could manage better on benefits (don't smoke,or drink, or have takeaways, or go on holiday, or buy the latest branded clothes/phones etc, or go out...), but there will also be people who slip through the net. And your facts re money spent are then irrelevant. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society Live in the real world mate. n 2022/23, Government spending 2022/2023: social protection £327 billion health £217 billion general public services £168 billion. Social protection covers housing benefit, pensions, and supporting people who are at risk of exclusion from society, such as those on low incomes or refugees. As I have mentioned no government is going to make poor people rich, slightly less socially poor at best. Not enough money and no will from the public to share their efforts. People should stop relying on the government as the way out of their personal circumstances, a helping hand if needed but not a reliance. Not sure why you put all that. Not to worry though, instead you can tell me how people are meant to manage when they aren't covered by the so-called safety nets of the benefits system. Because you dismissed the comments of the post with a flippant “live in the real world mate” You now have the facts and they support the poster you were replying to. I don’t need to tell you how people should manage, just as I don’t expect you to tell me why they can’t manage. No amount of wishful thinking will convert the uk voter into sharing their earnings or savings, you will also have people who try and fail, try and succeed. It is personal life, not a government life I'll be flippant again then - you too should live in the real world. There will always be people who could manage better on benefits (don't smoke,or drink, or have takeaways, or go on holiday, or buy the latest branded clothes/phones etc, or go out...), but there will also be people who slip through the net. And your facts re money spent are then irrelevant. " Irrelevant because of what, those spending their benefits on luxuries? Slipping through the net needs a helping hand, not forever funds. Bottomless pit of money, we have not got, no matter how rose tinted the glasses are, unless we cut funding elsewhere? What will you defund, who suffers? | |||
"... Because you dismissed the comments of the post with a flippant “live in the real world mate” You now have the facts and they support the poster you were replying to. I don’t need to tell you how people should manage, just as I don’t expect you to tell me why they can’t manage. No amount of wishful thinking will convert the uk voter into sharing their earnings or savings, you will also have people who try and fail, try and succeed. It is personal life, not a government life I'll be flippant again then - you too should live in the real world. There will always be people who could manage better on benefits (don't smoke,or drink, or have takeaways, or go on holiday, or buy the latest branded clothes/phones etc, or go out...), but there will also be people who slip through the net. And your facts re money spent are then irrelevant. Irrelevant because of what, those spending their benefits on luxuries? Slipping through the net needs a helping hand, not forever funds. Bottomless pit of money, we have not got, no matter how rose tinted the glasses are, unless we cut funding elsewhere? What will you defund, who suffers? " You possibly misunderstood my intention. The person who slips through the safety net will find the billions spent by the govt, irrelevant. There'll be no luxuries. In fact nutrition will be dire so the bills are paid. Not everyone gets what they are entitled to. | |||
"Sunak was today asked why we should vote Conservative at the next election , he said "for change " Amazing. Still, it'll work. People will vote Tory in droves. Stockholm syndrome is a very real condition. ". ,,,, ,,, Sunak said "change" a total of 6 times in 29 seconds | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. " Gotta be honest, you've got me a bit confused. You stated that Gen Z are not becoming more conservative with age. I said, that's because the oldest Gen Z are only 27-28. That's no age. Give it another 10 years and see what Gen Z think to left or right wing politics. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. Gotta be honest, you've got me a bit confused. You stated that Gen Z are not becoming more conservative with age. I said, that's because the oldest Gen Z are only 27-28. That's no age. Give it another 10 years and see what Gen Z think to left or right wing politics." It started with Millennials and is continuing with GenZ’s I think you probably need to look at the graphs in the studies- gen Z are very moderate and very closely related to millennials in political and economic out look. Gen Z ‘s in general do not save for a house -they rent because affordability is decreasing with time. Traditionally- The biggest factor in becoming more conservative over time is the accumulation of wealth through property and pensions - this link was broken by Millennials and is being continued by Gen Z. The exception to this rule are Boomers that are the bank of Mum and Dad for Gen Z / Millennials but in general Millennials/ Gen Z’s are more interested in policies that promotes wealth redistribution. | |||
| |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. Gotta be honest, you've got me a bit confused. You stated that Gen Z are not becoming more conservative with age. I said, that's because the oldest Gen Z are only 27-28. That's no age. Give it another 10 years and see what Gen Z think to left or right wing politics. It started with Millennials and is continuing with GenZ’s I think you probably need to look at the graphs in the studies- gen Z are very moderate and very closely related to millennials in political and economic out look. Gen Z ‘s in general do not save for a house -they rent because affordability is decreasing with time. Traditionally- The biggest factor in becoming more conservative over time is the accumulation of wealth through property and pensions - this link was broken by Millennials and is being continued by Gen Z. The exception to this rule are Boomers that are the bank of Mum and Dad for Gen Z / Millennials but in general Millennials/ Gen Z’s are more interested in policies that promotes wealth redistribution." All of that makes sense, I think maybe now you're confused though. You specifically said Gen Z aren't becoming more conservative with age but all Gen Z are under 30, which is no age. Maybe you should've spoken about Millenials instead | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. Gotta be honest, you've got me a bit confused. You stated that Gen Z are not becoming more conservative with age. I said, that's because the oldest Gen Z are only 27-28. That's no age. Give it another 10 years and see what Gen Z think to left or right wing politics. It started with Millennials and is continuing with GenZ’s I think you probably need to look at the graphs in the studies- gen Z are very moderate and very closely related to millennials in political and economic out look. Gen Z ‘s in general do not save for a house -they rent because affordability is decreasing with time. Traditionally- The biggest factor in becoming more conservative over time is the accumulation of wealth through property and pensions - this link was broken by Millennials and is being continued by Gen Z. The exception to this rule are Boomers that are the bank of Mum and Dad for Gen Z / Millennials but in general Millennials/ Gen Z’s are more interested in policies that promotes wealth redistribution. All of that makes sense, I think maybe now you're confused though. You specifically said Gen Z aren't becoming more conservative with age but all Gen Z are under 30, which is no age. Maybe you should've spoken about Millenials instead "No age! They currently have political views are very politically active. They progressive leaning and are very likely never to change. I think you are being slightly insulting and dismissive to the Gen Z’s - their political views have been well formed since their early teenage years. Again Gen Z’s were completely underestimated in the run up to US presidential and mid term elections. That’s why the Tories, climate U turn last week- politically, is catastrophic- if there is one thing that will galvanise the Gen Z vote it’s climate change and there are 12 million in the UK. It’s a huge voting block and labour is being smart on social media platforms engaging with this group. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. Gotta be honest, you've got me a bit confused. You stated that Gen Z are not becoming more conservative with age. I said, that's because the oldest Gen Z are only 27-28. That's no age. Give it another 10 years and see what Gen Z think to left or right wing politics. It started with Millennials and is continuing with GenZ’s I think you probably need to look at the graphs in the studies- gen Z are very moderate and very closely related to millennials in political and economic out look. Gen Z ‘s in general do not save for a house -they rent because affordability is decreasing with time. Traditionally- The biggest factor in becoming more conservative over time is the accumulation of wealth through property and pensions - this link was broken by Millennials and is being continued by Gen Z. The exception to this rule are Boomers that are the bank of Mum and Dad for Gen Z / Millennials but in general Millennials/ Gen Z’s are more interested in policies that promotes wealth redistribution. All of that makes sense, I think maybe now you're confused though. You specifically said Gen Z aren't becoming more conservative with age but all Gen Z are under 30, which is no age. Maybe you should've spoken about Millenials instead
No age! They currently have political views are very politically active. They progressive leaning and are very likely never to change. I think you are being slightly insulting and dismissive to the Gen Z’s - their political views have been well formed since their early teenage years.
Again Gen Z’s were completely underestimated in the run up to US presidential and mid term elections.
That’s why the Tories, climate U turn last week- politically, is catastrophic- if there is one thing that will galvanise the Gen Z vote it’s climate change and there are 12 million in the UK.
It’s a huge voting block and labour is being smart on social media platforms engaging with this group."Addition- which traditionally does not vote in elections but this will change in the next election | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. Gotta be honest, you've got me a bit confused. You stated that Gen Z are not becoming more conservative with age. I said, that's because the oldest Gen Z are only 27-28. That's no age. Give it another 10 years and see what Gen Z think to left or right wing politics. It started with Millennials and is continuing with GenZ’s I think you probably need to look at the graphs in the studies- gen Z are very moderate and very closely related to millennials in political and economic out look. Gen Z ‘s in general do not save for a house -they rent because affordability is decreasing with time. Traditionally- The biggest factor in becoming more conservative over time is the accumulation of wealth through property and pensions - this link was broken by Millennials and is being continued by Gen Z. The exception to this rule are Boomers that are the bank of Mum and Dad for Gen Z / Millennials but in general Millennials/ Gen Z’s are more interested in policies that promotes wealth redistribution. All of that makes sense, I think maybe now you're confused though. You specifically said Gen Z aren't becoming more conservative with age but all Gen Z are under 30, which is no age. Maybe you should've spoken about Millenials instead
No age! They currently have political views are very politically active. They progressive leaning and are very likely never to change. I think you are being slightly insulting and dismissive to the Gen Z’s - their political views have been well formed since their early teenage years.
Again Gen Z’s were completely underestimated in the run up to US presidential and mid term elections.
That’s why the Tories, climate U turn last week- politically, is catastrophic- if there is one thing that will galvanise the Gen Z vote it’s climate change and there are 12 million in the UK.
It’s a huge voting block and labour is being smart on social media platforms engaging with this group.
Addition- which traditionally does not vote in elections but this will change in the next election "I'm not bring insulting or dismissive at all. You're clearly not hearing me. The oldest Gen Z would have been able to vote for the maximum of 10 years at this point. You said 'WITH AGE', they've had 10 years from an average or 62 voting years, that is 'no age'. We keep being told that the younger people will come along and knock the Tories off but it never happens. I have never said that younger voters aren't politically engaged. Usually with more idealistic intentions if we view demographics historically. So again, 28 years old is 'no age' in terms of voting. I'm notbsure why I'm having to explain this, it's quite easy to get your head round. | |||
"Gen X are always forgotten "gen x here, reakon we had it best, no social media hardly any cctv could do and say pretty much what you wanted, probably the last generation that was free | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. Gotta be honest, you've got me a bit confused. You stated that Gen Z are not becoming more conservative with age. I said, that's because the oldest Gen Z are only 27-28. That's no age. Give it another 10 years and see what Gen Z think to left or right wing politics. It started with Millennials and is continuing with GenZ’s I think you probably need to look at the graphs in the studies- gen Z are very moderate and very closely related to millennials in political and economic out look. Gen Z ‘s in general do not save for a house -they rent because affordability is decreasing with time. Traditionally- The biggest factor in becoming more conservative over time is the accumulation of wealth through property and pensions - this link was broken by Millennials and is being continued by Gen Z. The exception to this rule are Boomers that are the bank of Mum and Dad for Gen Z / Millennials but in general Millennials/ Gen Z’s are more interested in policies that promotes wealth redistribution. All of that makes sense, I think maybe now you're confused though. You specifically said Gen Z aren't becoming more conservative with age but all Gen Z are under 30, which is no age. Maybe you should've spoken about Millenials instead
No age! They currently have political views are very politically active. They progressive leaning and are very likely never to change. I think you are being slightly insulting and dismissive to the Gen Z’s - their political views have been well formed since their early teenage years.
Again Gen Z’s were completely underestimated in the run up to US presidential and mid term elections.
That’s why the Tories, climate U turn last week- politically, is catastrophic- if there is one thing that will galvanise the Gen Z vote it’s climate change and there are 12 million in the UK.
It’s a huge voting block and labour is being smart on social media platforms engaging with this group.
Addition- which traditionally does not vote in elections but this will change in the next election
I'm not bring insulting or dismissive at all.
You're clearly not hearing me.
The oldest Gen Z would have been able to vote for the maximum of 10 years at this point.
You said 'WITH AGE', they've had 10 years from an average or 62 voting years, that is 'no age'.
We keep being told that the younger people will come along and knock the Tories off but it never happens. I have never said that younger voters aren't politically engaged. Usually with more idealistic intentions if we view demographics historically.
So again, 28 years old is 'no age' in terms of voting. I'm notbsure why I'm having to explain this, it's quite easy to get your head round. "I see what you mean about ‘no age’ now that you explained what you meant by the term ( was open to interpretation)and agree that - voting wise there turn has not been traditionally good but indications are that this will change at the next elections- particularly because of the Tories failed/ botched attempt at voter suppression at the local election through ID is unlikely to wheeled out at the general election. I would keen keen to know why you think their intentions are idealistic? | |||
"Gen X are always forgotten gen x here, reakon we had it best, no social media hardly any cctv could do and say pretty much what you wanted, probably the last generation that was free"Generally agree. Although you can still say pretty much what you want, just someone might answer you back now. | |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? Part one answer: Yes they are dying out- traditionally they relied on voters becoming more conservative with age but Gen z ers are not becoming more conservative with age. Part 2: there is a huge influence of think tanks with rather opaque funding but have links to conservative republicans in the US. It’s like the conservatives have done a trump Ian conversion without Trump The oldest Gen Z is what 27-28? Not quite old enough to turn conservative yet I wouldn't have thought. Although, I really only know 2 who would be old enough to vote, one is 27, she would likely vote Tory and then there's my daughter (18), who is very much a centrist so could vote either way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Generation_Z https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Not really so if you look at the stats for both groups. The big issue is that there is less ownership of wealth/ assets amongst this group than there ever has for this this age group historically- they are more interested is wealth redistribution than protecting the assets they have. It’s a fact the Conservatives seem to Completely ignore and have completely take for granted than becoming more right wing is a function of your age. Gotta be honest, you've got me a bit confused. You stated that Gen Z are not becoming more conservative with age. I said, that's because the oldest Gen Z are only 27-28. That's no age. Give it another 10 years and see what Gen Z think to left or right wing politics. It started with Millennials and is continuing with GenZ’s I think you probably need to look at the graphs in the studies- gen Z are very moderate and very closely related to millennials in political and economic out look. Gen Z ‘s in general do not save for a house -they rent because affordability is decreasing with time. Traditionally- The biggest factor in becoming more conservative over time is the accumulation of wealth through property and pensions - this link was broken by Millennials and is being continued by Gen Z. The exception to this rule are Boomers that are the bank of Mum and Dad for Gen Z / Millennials but in general Millennials/ Gen Z’s are more interested in policies that promotes wealth redistribution. All of that makes sense, I think maybe now you're confused though. You specifically said Gen Z aren't becoming more conservative with age but all Gen Z are under 30, which is no age. Maybe you should've spoken about Millenials instead
No age! They currently have political views are very politically active. They progressive leaning and are very likely never to change. I think you are being slightly insulting and dismissive to the Gen Z’s - their political views have been well formed since their early teenage years.
Again Gen Z’s were completely underestimated in the run up to US presidential and mid term elections.
That’s why the Tories, climate U turn last week- politically, is catastrophic- if there is one thing that will galvanise the Gen Z vote it’s climate change and there are 12 million in the UK.
It’s a huge voting block and labour is being smart on social media platforms engaging with this group.
Addition- which traditionally does not vote in elections but this will change in the next election
I'm not bring insulting or dismissive at all.
You're clearly not hearing me.
The oldest Gen Z would have been able to vote for the maximum of 10 years at this point.
You said 'WITH AGE', they've had 10 years from an average or 62 voting years, that is 'no age'.
We keep being told that the younger people will come along and knock the Tories off but it never happens. I have never said that younger voters aren't politically engaged. Usually with more idealistic intentions if we view demographics historically.
So again, 28 years old is 'no age' in terms of voting. I'm notbsure why I'm having to explain this, it's quite easy to get your head round.
I see what you mean about ‘no age’ now that you explained what you meant by the term ( was open to interpretation)and agree that - voting wise there turn has not been traditionally good but indications are that this will change at the next elections- particularly because of the Tories failed/ botched attempt at voter suppression at the local election through ID is unlikely to wheeled
out at the general election.
I would keen keen to know why you think their intentions are idealistic?
"Young voter (under 35) turnout was up in 2017 and up again in 2019. I don't think it has anything to do with any backlash to 'voter suppression'. The younger voter I would argue are increasing because they want the Tories out, younger voters are more likely to vote for Labour and so the likes of Momentum target them to get them to vote, just as Dale Vince is about to. | |||
"Gen X are always forgotten gen x here, reakon we had it best, no social media hardly any cctv could do and say pretty much what you wanted, probably the last generation that was free"Great music scene too when albums still mattered and physical product gave some sense of value to the art before the internet came along and downloads devalued due to disposability (I sound old). Possible last generation to more easily get on house ownership ladder too? But then as little kids we did grow up with the spectre of nuclear war and an aids epidemic (ie huge demonisation and fear mongering due to lack of understanding) | |||
| |||
"Sunak was today asked why we should vote Conservative at the next election , he said "for change " Amazing. Still, it'll work. People will vote Tory in droves. Stockholm syndrome is a very real condition. . ,,,, ,,, Sunak said "change" a total of 6 times in 29 seconds "Sunak at it again , at the end of The Kings Speech Sunak kept saying it was time for change ,,,, 13 years Rishi lad definately time for change | |||
| |||
"Apparently there are only about 170 thousand Tory Party members whereas in Thatchers day there were over 2 million….is there a reason for this or are they all just dying off and is that why they are coming up with increasingly mad policies? . Probably the important point is the quality of the membership, not the actual number. . Most people would regard three election wins as an outstanding success story . The last election is a case in point- an 80 seat majority made reality hit home to some people. It looks like having quality members paid dividends. Reality hit home for a lot of people alright. Savage austerity Brexit Covid incompetence Disaster capitalism Sleaze Cronyism PPE scandals Plenty of people will still vote Tory though. As you keep pointing out, they're very successful with their PR and propaganda. Voting either labour or conservative doesn't influence the lives of people who are either poor or rich. If you are minimum wage, no savings and struggling week to week, red or blue you will more than likely still be in the same place. Rich, no need to work or comfortable enough to be able to ride out the many ups and downs, no change there. The middle ground is where change is felt the most, if they can appeal to that voter the win is theirs. Labour often talk about hitting the upper earners, those better off with more taxes, they lose that vote and they lose the vote of those that are aspiring to better themselves. Right now, the economy is making it tough for so many, people can't see a tory benefit. No promises of more money in the pocket is a hard sell for Sunak, and why he is now focusing on what he sees as societal values, healthier nation and considered thinking, it is all he has. Starmer just needs to keep his mouth shut. I disagree. The austerity imposed during Tory rule has directly impacted poorer people. Sunak or whomever is advising him, is coming out promoting culture wars. And other elements of the party are ramping up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. so you do agree, as I said if you are poor the choice of government makes no odds, you remain poor.... or as I put it, still in the same place I disagree. It makes you more poor, less well off, and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Or did I miss the point, are you asking me about structure? IE with a different government, those who are poor, will remain at the bottom of the pile? That is exactly what I'm saying, no government will make poor people rich, slightly or marginally better off is as good as they can hope for. Indeed. But that's not the aim. The aim is for a fairer society, with more opportunities, and less austerity measures on poor people. You do realise that this country has seen some of the biggest anti-austerity measures in its history, over the last few years? Lol. Isn't anti-austerity just not having austerity? Sadly we had fuck loads of austerity measures placed on poor, those who care for disabled people etc. . Have you actually reviewed expenditure on the poor and disabled. ? Do you mix with them on a regular or daily basis . ?. If you did you would be aware that the disabled receive an allowance of up to £700 per month , part of which can be surrender and replaced by a car on the mobility scheme which is replaced every three years . These benefits are not means tested and are in addition to any other benefits . Posters should not be using the disabled in an attempt to score political points. There are currently in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme . All you have to do is put in petrol. Those on Universal Credit will receive extensive help with their rental costs and in many cases rent will be reimbursed in full. The reality is that the government provide extensive help to the less well off in society " Unless of course they have more than two children in which case the Benefits Cap may mean there is not enough left to pay Housing Benefits for any property let alone one large enough for their family | |||
