h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I wonder how much of our personal political alleigances result from the personalities of others, rather than actual policies?

F'rinstance, I reckon a lot of the support for Thatcher was a reaction against the strident manner of Scargill et al.

And one of the most vehement Tory supporters I know still owes me a lot of money - that fundamentally self-centered and amoral (immoral?) attitude reinforces my conviction that the Tory approach to life in general is not about fairness, but about the freedom to do whatever the hell I like.

Comments, dear Forumites?

"I reckon a lot of the support for Thatcher was a reaction against the strident manner of Scargill et al."

I was too young to vote, and therefore can't be certain, but I'd suggest that a lot of Thatcher's support was more a reaction against the fundamental unelectability of the Labour party in the eighties. That, combined with an undeniable feeling that actually, life was pretty good for a lot of people - and before people jump down my throat, I'm talking about all those working class people who were able to buy their council houses. They probably didn't think through the longer term consequences, but I'd guess that's why Thatcher won in '87. She won in '79 on the back of the winter of discontent, and in '83 on the back of the Falklands and "the longest suicide note in history", the disastrous Labour manifesto, plus Michael Foot's appalling image.

As for why they won in '92, I'm pretty baffled, but I'd say that had a lot to do with the tabloid influence and the Sheffield rally, plus a lot of people voting Tory because they're basically selfish but didn't want to admit it.

SoRB

I've always had a (possibly irrational) prejudice against obviously public school types. Smarminess like that of Blair or Cameron is also offputting to me. Perhaps because I grew up in Scotland I've always liked and trusted many Scottish politicians like John Smith and Gordon Brown so personality is important but so is our own background in determining the type of politician we instinctively feel comfortable with IMO.

Rational consideration of policies is probably a lot less important than tribal loyalties to many of us.

"And one of the most vehement Tory supporters I know still owes me a lot of money - that fundamentally self-centered and amoral (immoral?) attitude reinforces my conviction that the Tory approach to life in general is not about fairness, but about the freedom to do whatever the hell I like."



Do me a favour - replace the word 'Tory' by the word 'Black' in your last posting then re-read it to yourself.

Now... What does that sound like to you?

What the **** has someone's politics got to do with whether or not they owe you money???

Fair point.

I guess because politics is about one's attitude to life - it's chosen rather than born with.

"What the **** has someone's politics got to do with whether or not they owe you money???"

Everything, I would have thought. Isn't it obvious? And suggesting that politics is anything remotely to do with race is just about the stupidest thing I've seen posted on here, against some pretty stiff competition.

Your politics are something you CHOOSE. And you choose your politics according to the sort of person you are. And the sort of person you are informs your actions.

Tories - i.e. anyone of a right-of-centre persuasion generally - can reasonably be characterised as more selfish than those of a left-of-centre persuasion.

Tories, in general, are those who favour everyone being responsible for themselves, private enterprise, small government, low taxes, low public spending.

This contrasts with the other lot, who favour the government doing more taking care of people, nationalised industry, big government, high taxes and lavish public spending.

It's not hard to see that someone of a Tory persuasion is basically a more selfish person, and therefore more likely to be the kind of person who would borrow money, and having done so take their sweet time paying it back, if at all.

To reiterate - to suggest replacing the word "Tory" with the word "black" in any sentence appallingly trivialises the real injustice that is racism. But then, that's something else I'd expect from a Tory...

SoRB

It does raise an intersting distinction: which of the following statements is prejudice?

I'm not giving you a job/ house because you're a Tory
I'm not giving you a job/ house because you're black
I'm not giving you a job/ house because you're a Catholic.

I'm not going out with you because you're a Tory
I'm not going out with you because you're black
I'm not going out with you because you're a Catholic.

"I'm not giving you a job/ house because you're a Tory
I'm not giving you a job/ house because you're black
I'm not giving you a job/ house because you're a Catholic."

None of these is defensible. Provision of employment, goods, services or accomodation should not be permitted to be withheld on grounds of politics, race, or chosen superstitious psychological crutch.

"I'm not going out with you because you're a Tory
I'm not going out with you because you're black
I'm not going out with you because you're a Catholic."

Every one of these is defensible.

I couldn't date a Tory. It would be a waste of time. I'd spend too much time arguing with them, and would have too little in common with them.
I could date a black person. There are many black women I find attractive. On the other hand, I would understand entirely if someone simply expressed an aesthetic disinclination towards people with dark skin. If Scandinavians is what rocks your boat, who else's business is it?
I couldn't date a Catholic any more than I could date an adult who still believed in Santa and the tooth fairy.

Prejudice? Apparently.

In my personal case, I'm prejudiced, apparently, against selfish people and stupid people. I'm also not that keen on blondes, if the truth be known, but only in the sense that I'd rather date someone with dark hair. I don't discriminate against blondes in any other context. Does it matter?

SoRB

"To reiterate - to suggest replacing the word "Tory" with the word "black" in any sentence appallingly trivialises the real injustice that is racism. But then, that's something else I'd expect from a Tory..."

Apologies, I'm not attempting to trivialise racism in anyway. My aim was merely to point out that the phrase was an extreme generalisation. (Maybe I should have said 'replace tory with 'cat owners').

However...

As to whether Tories are more selfish than socialists - I'd still say that's a huge generalisation and ignores the fact that human beings often completely separate their abstract 'political' views from their personal morality.

(In other words, as a total generalisation - a lot of human beings are hypocritical).


Who is more selfish:
The millionaire newspaper owner who supports a particular politician, because it's in his own interests to do so...
The middle-England, middle-class tory voter who works part time in their local Oxfam shop and spends the rest of their time fund-raising for the WI?
The anarchist/Marxist who declares 'property is theft' in the dock when caught shoplifting from a supermarket chain;
The left wing union rep who, in addition to his day-to-day work in a factory, spends hours fighting for the rights of his colleagues
or the unemployed socialist voter in a country like France, who truly believes that the state should be collecting enough taxes from businesses and higher paid individuals to provide them with a level of living superior to that of a couple who both work 40 hours a week in an office?

Humans exist to to serve their needs, any selfless act is attempt to serve a personal need be a religious duty or the need to to serve a personal convictions that the world should be a fairer place and you own idea of what fair is the right one.

The first and last are most repugnant but only the later is self-deluded.

SoRB - "It's not hard to see that someone of a Tory persuasion is basically a more selfish person, and therefore more likely to be the kind of person who would borrow money, and having done so take their sweet time paying it back, if at all."

Pathetic ! You're so blinkered it must be a struggle for you to cross the road.

When does Gordon intend to pay back the money he took out of my pension ? When does Geoffrey Robinson intend to pay back the men he put out of work during his time as MD of the Jag ?

How exactly does Tony Blair intend to pay back the mothers of this country for the sons he spent to play power politics in the Middle East ?