The Socialists Making the Poor Poorer

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

This is true. It also shows that demagoguery can move mountains of votes. So you can convince people to vote for you by persuading them that your policies will help them but in practice help them very little while benefiting your core vote. Osborne managed to convince poor working people to vote for him by convincing them that there were huge numbers of immigrants taking their jobs, loads of workshy people living the life of Riley on their taxes, etc. Very clever really.

there are approximately 8 million people living in London of which 3 million are foreign born
is it conceivable that the demand caused by the 3 million foreigner born could, in any way whatsoever, affect London houses prices?

mwpt

BobQ wrote: »

This is true. It also shows that demagoguery can move mountains of votes. So you can convince people to vote for you by persuading them that your policies will help them but in practice help them very little while benefiting your core vote. Osborne managed to convince poor working people to vote for him by convincing them that there were huge numbers of immigrants taking their jobs, loads of workshy people living the life of Riley on their taxes, etc. Very clever really.

What? The conservatives won by promising to run a better economy rather than getting Britain deeper into debt. That is why the majority of the working class voted conservative. It's as simple as the common working man understanding that he needs to run a sensible house and budget and thinking that the country must do the same (*). One party promises to do so, the other party spent all their time attacking this instead of actually campaigning on what they would do themselves. Guess which party won.

Are most labour supporters still stuck on the whole "nasty party" rhetoric? If so, then they don't have much hope of winning next time either.

(*) I make no comment here on the economics of this but this is the message that was drilled into peoples brains over and over again. Immigration was a side issue.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are approximately 8 million people living in London of which 3 million are foreign born
is it conceivable that the demand caused by the 3 million foreigner born could, in any way whatsoever, affect London houses prices?

Yes, fair enough, but the UK is not London and I did not mention house prices which as we all know are a religion for some.

BobQ

mwpt wrote: »

What? The conservatives won by promising to run a better economy rather than getting Britain deeper into debt. That is why the majority of the working class voted conservative. It's as simple as the common working man understanding that he needs to run a sensible house and budget and thinking that the country must do the same (*). One party promises to do so, the other party spent all their time attacking this instead of actually campaigning on what they would do themselves. Guess which party won.

Are most labour supporters still stuck on the whole "nasty party" rhetoric? If so, then they don't have much hope of winning next time either.

(*) I make no comment here on the economics of this but this is the message that was drilled into peoples brains over and over again. Immigration was a side issue.

Generali made the point that the Tories could never get elected if they only had rich people supporting them. I agree with this point (it is axiomatic).

So either the Tories get elected by convincing 35-40% of the electorate they are better or better for them; or they persuade some of them to vote for them when it is not in their interests. You clearly believe the former but that is not the point.

I am trying not to be political about this. You can win elections by convincing people you will do what they want. But you can also win by convincing them to be afraid of things. ( Immigration was just an example, I could have said the SNP bogeyman or if you prefer simplistic economics that a nation's economy is just like their household budget). That is demagoguery in action.

mwpt

BobQ wrote: »

Generali made the point that the Tories could never get elected if they only had rich people supporting them. I agree with this point (it is axiomatic).

So either the Tories get elected by convincing 35-40% of the electorate they are better or better for them; or they persuade some of them to vote for them when it is not in their interests. You clearly believe the former but that is not the point.

I am trying not to be political about this. You can win elections by convincing people you will do what they want. But you can also win by convincing them to be afraid of things. ( Immigration was just an example, I could have said the SNP bogeyman or if you prefer simplistic economics that a nation's economy is just like their household budget). That is demagoguery in action.

I read your post as saying this is what happened, I didn't realise you were merely trying to say that it was a possibility to win an election. Apologies.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Yes, fair enough, but the UK is not London and I did not mention house prices which as we all know are a religion for some.

The ability to own a modest family home and start a family before 40 is an important aspect of people's real income and quality of life.
People who worship the false god of GDP obviously don't care about real people actual experience because they feel that access to yet another coffee shop and a Mongolian restaurant is an adequate substitute.
In any real analysis these people are poorer than their equivalents 30 years ago : we have reduced our effective income and standard of living and we are doomed to get poorer and poorer as the population grows.

mwpt

mwpt wrote: »

I read your post as saying this is what happened, I didn't realise you were merely trying to say that it was a possibility to win an election. Apologies.

Actually, I went back to check. I am not sure how I could interpret what you said differently, and I think you got it wrong, you're focussing on the wrong issue. This is what you said:

"Osborne managed to convince poor working people to vote for him by convincing them that there were huge numbers of immigrants taking their jobs, loads of workshy people living the life of Riley on their taxes, etc. Very clever really."

I still don't think this was a big part of the conservative party campaign. It was a small side issue. The biggest issue was the economy.

BobQ

mwpt wrote: »

Actually, I went back to check. I am not sure how I could interpret what you said differently, and I think you got it wrong, you're focussing on the wrong issue. This is what you said:

"Osborne managed to convince poor working people to vote for him by convincing them that there were huge numbers of immigrants taking their jobs, loads of workshy people living the life of Riley on their taxes, etc. Very clever really."

I still don't think this was a big part of the conservative party campaign. It was a small side issue. The biggest issue was the economy.

I see what you mean, and I agree that immigration was not a big issue for the leadership even if it was for some of the more right wing MPs.