Why do farmers vote Tory?

[Robertj21a]

As others have said already, farmers run businesses. Conservatives understand businesses, Labour never does. Conservatives expect a fair reward for a fair day's work - Labour see what benefits they can pay out to those who won't work.......

:roll:

 

[fowler9]

As others have said already, farmers run businesses. Conservatives understand businesses, Labour never does. Conservatives expect a fair reward for a fair day's work - Labour see what benefits they can pay out to those who won't work.......

:roll:

I really can't agree with that. I work more hours for less pay than at any time in the last ten years supporting our armed forces since everything got privatised and the support has arguably got worse since it was sold off to the cheapest bidder. You may disagree if you think that our armed forces defending our oil and gas supplies don't do their bit for the economy. It is an absolute fallacy to say that Labour just want to give money to people who don't work. I could easily say that the right wing don't want to give any of their money to anyone. Fair reward for a fair days work is a load of rubbish with the Tories.

 

[Bevan Price]

Simple. A Tory government will always understand farmers. A Labour government doesn't. Who else but a Labour government would opt for a vegetarian minister of agriculture and then a vegan shadow minister. You only had to see how the Bliar government made a total shambles of the foot and mouth epidemic too see how they haven't a clue on country affairs. It was a Labour government that passed the Badger bill, now the creatures are breeding like flies, spreading T.B. through the dairy herd - it's no good denying it, talk to Gloucester and Somerset dairy farmers - and they destroy ground nesting birds eggs and chicks.
The average Labour Islingtonite simply is clueless on the real world. Have a read of Robin Page's books and you'll soon learn.

The badger issue is still a matter of debate, but badgers are an easy target to blame. Yes, badgers & cattle both get TB. But, do badgers give TB to cows - or due they catch it from infected cows ? And could other creatures assist the spread of TB - bird droppings for example. The scientists still do not agree, but a vociferous farming lobby has persuaded the government that the blame lies entirely with badgers.

Most farmers are decent hard working people. But, like it or not, a minority of the farming community has the same careless, unthinking attitude as the worst cowboy builders, and it only takes poor animal husbandry by a few "cowboys" to spread diseases.

 

[St Rollox]

With only one Scottish MP out of 59 i doubt this Tory Farmer thingy is working up here.

 

[DarloRich]

As others have said already, farmers run businesses. Conservatives understand businesses, Labour never does. Conservatives expect a fair reward for a fair day's work - Labour see what benefits they can pay out to those who won't work.......

:roll:

I really can't agree with that. I work more hours for less pay than at any time in the last ten years supporting our armed forces since everything got privatised and the support has arguably got worse since it was sold off to the cheapest bidder. You may disagree if you think that our armed forces defending our oil and gas supplies don't do their bit for the economy. It is an absolute fallacy to say that Labour just want to give money to people who don't work. I could easily say that the right wing don't want to give any of their money to anyone. Fair reward for a fair days work is a load of rubbish with the Tories.

Don't respond to the predictable trolling that offers nothing to the debate

 

[Oswyntail]

Don't respond to the predictable trolling that offers nothing to the debate

It would be quite interesting to turn the question on its head and ask "Why do urban workers vote Labour?". It does appear at times that many simply accept the picture of Labour striving for the "working man", and agree with that awful man and his "Tories are lower than vermin" reasonableness. The world has moved on since the days of Keir Hardie (for better or worse), and the image of the parties of the "rich toff" and the "oppressed worker" are equal caricatures. Corbyn and UKIP are both, in their way, offering a resurrection of those caricatures, but centrist parties all seem to have lost such definition.

 

[Clip]

Please explain and offer suggestions on how can this literal working class be persuaded to vote Red instead.
.

How about letting people vote for who they want to vote for and not try and force your views or party politics on anyone else?

Radical thinking I know but with you progressives it may just be up your street

 

[Tetchytyke]

Bliar

Luckily with that one little word we now know we can safely ignore anything you have to say.

Absolutely, but could/should that miserable 13 years have made people consider moving their vote ?

Tony Blair's rule was so "miserable" and so "hated" that he won three successive general elections, two on a landslide. Even his "weakest" election victory gave him a majority that was only the 400% higher than David Cameron's "stunning election victory" in May.

I'd say Blair's Third Way politics spoke to the country far more than either Cameron's Flashman bully-boy routine or Miliband or Corbyn's sixth form politics ever will.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Corbyn and UKIP are both, in their way, offering a resurrection of those caricatures, but centrist parties all seem to have lost such definition.

I think you underestimate the power of the soundbite, and it is an awful lot easier to make good copy when you take an extreme position. Those on the fringes don't need to be nuanced.

I actually think Momentum and UKIP are coming from the same place: anger and frustration at ten years of unstable employment and wage stagnation. The Labour Left are reverting to type and blaming the "rich toffs and bankers" (and not without reason, I'd suggest) and the UKIP Right are reverting to type and blaming those bally foreigners (and again, leaving aside the racism, not without reason).

I think the trouble is that there isn't a centrist party at the minute that can really appeal to anyone. Labour seem to be lurching more and more towards Dave Spart politics, and Cameron and Osborne seem to consider themselves the heirs of Thatcher, although they've decided to be the leftist caricature of her rather than the intelligent and nuanced politician she (usually) was.

The Lib Dems were the closest to being the centrist party, certainly from about 2005 onwards, but sadly their intelligent and nuanced position got drowned out by BULLER BULLER BULLER from the Tory front benches and LYNCH THE BANKERS from the Labour left. Cameron's only political achievement was getting Nick Clegg to get all the blame for the coalition government's disgraceful treatment of anyone without a Trust Fund. And that achievement goes to show that it is currently impossible to take a sensible and nuanced policy position because you'll just get drowned out by the rhetoric.

 

[Barn]

I think the trouble is that there isn't a centrist party at the minute that can really appeal to anyone.

The country does indeed seem to look for a centrist government and they found it with Blair (who had three good majorities), and they've found it with Cameron (who has just increased his share of the vote whilst in power).

In much of Blair's time the Conservatives were considered off-centre (particularly under Michael Howard) and in much of Cameron's time the Labour party has been off-centre in the other direction.

If Cameron is the heir to anybody, it's to Blair, at least in terms of electoral appeal. There are plenty of centrist voters (myself included) that have made that journey. Electoral decisions say as much about the alternatives as they do about the victors.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The country does indeed seem to look for a centrist government...and they've found it with Cameron (who has just increased his share of the vote whilst in power).

He increased his share of the vote overall by 0.8%. An increase is an increase and all that, but Labour (who most reckon had a disastrous election campaign) increased their share of the vote overall by 1.5%.

The Lib Dem vote collapsed by 15%. I think if Cameron had truly received the ringing centrist endorsement he claims he did then the Conservatives should have significantly increased their share of the vote. They didn't. It barely changed (in England he gained 1.4% vote share). I think it is clear that the LD vote largely moved back to Labour in England and Wales (their English vote share went up by 3.6%), but Labour's huge losses in Scotland (where they lost 20% of their vote share) and smaller losses to the Greens swallowed it up.

The Tories were able to pick up about 15% of the LD vote which, given nearly all their gains were in the south west LD/Con marginals, was enough to get them home even taking into account their own vote share losses to UKIP.

 

[radamfi]

The apparent urban/rural divide is largely an artefact of the voting system. In the days when there were only really two parties to choose from, Labour clearly appealed to those in working class urban environments. In many seats there were only two candidates. Because of the immense power of incumbency under the current voting system, when a third party became more relevant, voters had to choose for the party who they least disliked if their preferred party had little hope of winning. Therefore, the urban/rural split has largely persisted until the current day.

Nowadays, the Conservative/Labour parties are generally "brands" which appeal to certain segments of society, but a lot of people can take them or leave them. Just like branding in retail, just because a certain party has a certain brand, the image may not necessarily be reflected when in office. For example, the Labour government didn't do much to change bus deregulation and made little impact on cycling. Train fares continued to be expensive. The Netherlands has had a conservative prime minister for a number of years now, yet cycling continues to enjoy heavy investment, local buses continue to be brilliant and trains continue to be cheap. The Netherlands still has a progressive tax system, whereas Labour largely continued with the tax rates inherited in 1997.

Also mature countries like the Netherlands and Germany regularly enjoy "grand coalitions" between right and left parties, meaning that there is a genuine consensus government.

 

[DarloRich]

. There are plenty of centrist voters (myself included) that have made that journey. Electoral decisions say as much about the alternatives as they do about the victors.

I have real issues with the idea of such a journey. I could never vote Conservative. Ever.

 

[Barn]

I have real issues with the idea of such a journey. I could never vote Conservative. Ever.

That's your right. I personally think it reflects intransigence rather than conviction and isn't the best way to approach decision making. Why cut off half of your options before even considering the matter?

I'd probably vote Labour again if it normalised itself and if the Conservatives went back to the bad old days. At the moment it's simply not an option, of course.

 

[Butts]

With only one Scottish MP out of 59 i doubt this Tory Farmer thingy is working up here.

My Uncle / Cousins were Farmers in Argyll and they voted Liberal or SNP.

"The Tory Farmer thingy" used to be the case in Scotland , historically most of the rural seats were Conservative held or Liberal - certainly not Labour.

The day of reckoning will arrive for the SNP as soon as they are unable to blame everything on Westminster.

Indeed I received my notice from The Inland Revenue informing me that as a "Scottish Domiciled" taxpayer" I may be subjected to different rates from the rest of the UK from next year.

Will the SNP raise Income Tax Rates to fund their progressive policies, only hitting the basic rate will raise serious levels of cash.

 

[DarloRich]

That's your right. I personally think it reflects intransigence rather than conviction and isn't the best way to approach decision making. Why cut off half of your options before even considering the matter?

I'd probably vote Labour again if it normalised itself and if the Conservatives went back to the bad old days. At the moment it's simply not an option, of course.

i intend no criticism - just that i could never vote for the Conservatives. I don't feel their views reflect my own or that their policies help the majority. Perhaps i ought to focus on myself more as others do. As an aside am always happy to consider the policies of all parties. Without doing so how i can i pick fault with the evil Tory fat cats?

I never felt i could vote for someone other than Labour but disagree with the approach taken by Corbyn so who knows?! It wont be Tory though.

 

[miami]

i intend no criticism - just that i could never vote for the Conservatives. I don't feel their views reflect my own or that their policies help the majority. Perhaps i ought to focus on myself more as others do. As an aside am always happy to consider the policies of all parties. Without doing so how i can i pick fault with the evil Tory fat cats?

Never is a long time. The Tory party now is very different to how it was in 1997, which was very different to how it was in 1979, which was very different to how it was in 1945.

I suspect your needs and desires are different too.

There's a good portion of the country that will "never vote Party A", or "always vote Party A". That's a problem.

 

[Barn]

i could never vote for the Conservatives. I don't feel their views reflect my own or that their policies help the majority. Perhaps i ought to focus on myself more as others do. As an aside am always happy to consider the policies of all parties. Without doing so how i can i pick fault with the evil Tory fat cats?

I know you're joking, but just remember that real life is complicated.

Consider Labour policy areas like working tax credits. Are they a vital benefit for the poor of the country? Or are they a massive subsidy to the 'fat cat' business owners you dislike, making the payment by them of the minimum wage to their staff feasible and acceptable?

Is taking a relaxed approach to mass immigration a kind and decent thing to do? Or is it a betrayal of blue-collar workers who see massive job, wage and housing pressures whilst white-collar workers benefit from cheaper cappuccinos?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Consider Labour policy areas like working tax credits. Are they a vital benefit for the poor of the country? Or are they a massive subsidy to the 'fat cat' business owners you dislike, making the payment by them of the minimum wage to their staff feasible and acceptable?

It's not either/or; they can be, and are, both.

They act as a subsidy to the employers who pay the minimum they can (or less, in the case of Sports Direct). They protect the poorest people from penury.

The idea that employers will suddenly pay more when tax credits are abolished (the cuts are still coming, they've just been delayed a year or two) is laughable.

As for Economics George appropriating the term "living wage" and setting it several pounds below what the Living Wage Foundation claim is a living wage, that's just sums up the Tories' attitudes to the working poor. Instead of tackling zero hours contracts and destitution amongst people in full time employment, permanently resolving the issues, they just rebrand the status quo and act like we should be grateful. And if you happen to lose your zero-hours contract, or if you happen to live somewhere where you need housing benefit to pay the rent, or if you live in social housing, well, Iain Duncan Smith will come and get you.

The idea that the Conservatives are centrist is laughable. They protect a narrow demographic of people- pensioners and the hyper-rich- and just soundbite everyone else into confusion and submission. Take "income tax cuts" as a great example; I get £20 a month more in my wage packet than I did in 2010 because of tax changes. I've not had a pay rise of more than 1% since 2010, but never mind that. That looks great. Such a shame all that "extra money" gets wiped out in fuel duty, VAT on domestic fuel (interesting factoid: David Cameron was the SpAd at HMT when that corker was introduced by the Tories in the mid 90s), changes to insurance tax, cuts to pension relief, and the fact Economics George whacked VAT up by 25% the second he came to power.

I think the way social housing has changed definition from something that everyone could enjoy to a "subsidy" that the poor don't deserve is telling. I think the way the Conservatives have resisted any* sort of reform to the way the private rented housing sector operates is telling. I think the way the announced changes to CGT and stamp duty don't apply to private landlords who operate as a limited company is telling.

(* Actually, they did do one good thing in the Localism Act in 2011, where they sorted out the tenancy deposit protection rules after the Supreme Court had neutered the legislation with a succession of bizarre judgments)

I agree that "I'll never vote for party A" is a problematic statement, but I'm yet to see anything from the Conservatives that leads me to either a) agree with their manifesto or b) think they can be trusted to implement their manifesto. In fact, everything I see from them leads me to think they are in direct opposition to me: I work in the public sector, my partner works in the NHS, my daughter's mother is facing huge tax credit cuts, I'm stuck in private rented accommodation dealing with estate agents who are the dictionary defintion of crooked. Maybe they'll come around to looking after people like me, but it'll be a cold day in hell before they do with the likes of Jeremy Hunt involved.

 

[Butts]

It's not either/or; they can be, and are, both.

They act as a subsidy to the employers who pay the minimum they can (or less, in the case of Sports Direct). They protect the poorest people from penury.

The idea that employers will suddenly pay more when tax credits are abolished (the cuts are still coming, they've just been delayed a year or two) is laughable.

As for Economics George appropriating the term "living wage" and setting it several pounds below what the Living Wage Foundation claim is a living wage, that's just sums up the Tories' attitudes to the working poor. Instead of tackling zero hours contracts and destitution amongst people in full time employment, permanently resolving the issues, they just rebrand the status quo and act like we should be grateful. And if you happen to lose your zero-hours contract, or if you happen to live somewhere where you need housing benefit to pay the rent, or if you live in social housing, well, Iain Duncan Smith will come and get you.

The idea that the Conservatives are centrist is laughable. They protect a narrow demographic of people- pensioners and the hyper-rich- and just soundbite everyone else into confusion and submission. Take "income tax cuts" as a great example; I get £20 a month more in my wage packet than I did in 2010 because of tax changes. I've not had a pay rise of more than 1% since 2010, but never mind that. That looks great. Such a shame all that "extra money" gets wiped out in fuel duty, VAT on domestic fuel (interesting factoid: David Cameron was the SpAd at HMT when that corker was introduced by the Tories in the mid 90s), changes to insurance tax, cuts to pension relief, and the fact Economics George whacked VAT up by 25% the second he came to power.

I think the way social housing has changed definition from something that everyone could enjoy to a "subsidy" that the poor don't deserve is telling. I think the way the Conservatives have resisted any* sort of reform to the way the private rented housing sector operates is telling. I think the way the announced changes to CGT and stamp duty don't apply to private landlords who operate as a limited company is telling.

(* Actually, they did do one good thing in the Localism Act in 2011, where they sorted out the tenancy deposit protection rules after the Supreme Court had neutered the legislation with a succession of bizarre judgments)

I agree that "I'll never vote for party A" is a problematic statement, but I'm yet to see anything from the Conservatives that leads me to either a) agree with their manifesto or b) think they can be trusted to implement their manifesto. In fact, everything I see from them leads me to think they are in direct opposition to me: I work in the public sector, my partner works in the NHS, my daughter's mother is facing huge tax credit cuts, I'm stuck in private rented accommodation dealing with estate agents who are the dictionary defintion of crooked. Maybe they'll come around to looking after people like me, but it'll be a cold day in hell before they do with the likes of Jeremy Hunt involved.

Well at least you can look forward to a half-decent retirement as I assume both you and your partner will benefit from Index Linked Government Funded Pensions (albeit with higher contributions).

With regard to Sports Direct it is often overlooked that Employees not on Zero Hours Contracts benefit from a very lucrative Bonus Scheme which pays out in the Tens of Thousands sometimes if the Company does well.

With regard to pay rises these are not an automatic right, some people have not had one at all apart from statutory rises in the level of the minimum wage. A lot of them have no sick pay or decent pension either. When you look at it from this angle perhaps you are not as hard done by as you think.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well at least you can look forward to a half-decent retirement as I assume both you and your partner will benefit from Index Linked Government Funded Pensions (albeit with higher contributions).

She will, I won't. I'm not allowed to join our final/average salary pension scheme as I'm not of a high enough pay grade. The final/average salary pension scheme in my sector is reserved for the people at the top. Us little people need not apply.

With regard to Sports Direct it is often overlooked that Employees not on Zero Hours Contracts benefit from a very lucrative Bonus Scheme which pays out in the Tens of Thousands sometimes if the Company does well.

The bonus scheme is very generous, to those who are eligible for it. Sadly very few- less than 2000 people, mostly management- are eligible for it.

But I agree, the issue with Sports Direct is more nuanced than the tub-thumpers make out. And I don't actually think Sports Direct treat their agency staff any worse than most other companies do. How Royal Mail treated me when I was agency staff with them was shocking, but it was mostly the crooks and charlatans at the temping agency who were the problem. Small on brains but long on personality disorders, mostly.

With regard to pay rises these are not an automatic right, some people have not had one at all apart from statutory rises in the level of the minimum wage. A lot of them have no sick pay or decent pension either. When you look at it from this angle perhaps you are not as hard done by as you think.

As with anything in life, there are people better off and there are people worse off. We're both fortunate to have permanent jobs, at least for now. Life could be a lot worse. It is for a lot of people.

But that was kind of my point.

The Conservatives seem diametrically opposed to people like me, and to people who have it worse than I do. They're not here to defend the small people from the crooks in the employment agencies or the estate agencies, they're not here to defend the small people from rogue employers or fiendish landlords, they're not here to defend people who are disabled, they're not here to defend people who are unable to find work through no fault of their own, they're not here to defend the ill, they're not here to defend people who need legal help and cannot afford it.

Given most of my professional work is helping people in all those situations, it's fair to say that the Tories are not interested in me...

 

[talltim]

Anecdotal, but more accurate than who wins in rural areas, during election time, the posters I've seen put up on farms in my area (eastern Peak District) have all been Conservative ones.

 

[Barn]

The idea that the Conservatives are centrist is laughable. They protect a narrow demographic of people- pensioners and the hyper-rich- and just soundbite everyone else into confusion and submission.

People who vote differently to you are not necessarily confused or bullied!

The point about centrism in this country is that the party occupying that position moves between Labour and Conservatives from time to time. (Obviously the Lib Dems can be disregarded.)

There are lots of voters that seek out the sensible middle ground. For those, like me, who like the centre ground it's probably one of the biggest successes of Blairism that he didn't just end up moving the Labour party right but also the Conservative party left. For non-centrists, the complaint is that 'they're all the same'. Both parties at the last election believed in a free-at-delivery NHS, in progressive tax rates, in a free market economy, in retaining Trident, in safeguarding school funding, etc.

When a party moves away from the centre, the swing voters move away from it. I was turned off by the populist right-wing views of Michael Howard et al in the first decade of this century. I am turned off by the populist left-wing views of Corbyn in this decade.

There are lots like me. Understanding that many people don't see life as a Star Wars movie with obvious goodies and baddies is the key to understanding how to win the swing vote and win elections.

 

[DarloRich]

Whilst i am quite happy to agree with the above, especially about moving (in either direction) away from the centre ground I simply don't understand the concept of floating or swing voters! I intend no criticism of those who may be a floating voter just that i cant understand the thought process involved.

 

[Butts]

Whilst i am quite happy to agree with the above, especially about moving (in either direction) away from the centre ground I simply don't understand the concept of floating or swing voters! I intend no criticism of those who may be a floating voter just that i cant understand the thought process involved.

The thought process probably does not extend much further than what may or may not end up in their wallets.

Despite professing solidarity with the poor publicly, this notion seems to be quickly set aside within the privacy and confines of the voting booth.

 

[Barn]

Whilst i am quite happy to agree with the above, especially about moving (in either direction) away from the centre ground I simply don't understand the concept of floating or swing voters! I intend no criticism of those who may be a floating voter just that i cant understand the thought process involved.

Floating voter = someone who looks at what is being proposed, and who the leaders are, before making a decision.

Non-floating voter = someone who will only vote for a particular party regardless of what they are proposing to do and the character of the present leader.

In reality, I think many people are technically floating voters but in practice often float in a particular direction. That's fine. What I don't understand is when people entirely close their minds to the possibility of examining life outside their comfort zone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The thought process probably does not extend much further than what may or may not end up in their wallets.

Despite professing solidarity with the poor publicly, this notion seems to be quickly set aside within the privacy and confines of the voting booth.

I don't think that's entirely fair. There are plenty of rich socialists and poor conservatives, and I know several of each.

 

[St Rollox]

Floating voter = someone who looks at what is being proposed, and who the leaders are, before making a decision.

Non-floating voter = someone who will only vote for a particular party regardless of what they are proposing to do and the character of the present leader.

In reality, I think many people are technically floating voters but in practice often float in a particular direction. That's fine. What I don't understand is when people entirely close their minds to the possibility of examining life outside their comfort zone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't think that's entirely fair. There are plenty of rich socialists and poor conservatives, and I know several of each.

Define poor

 

[Oswyntail]

Define poor

Now that is the $64,000 question! There are at least three officially recognised definitions used in the UK and, IIRC, all three end up being relative - which means no one can ever defeat poverty, and we would be considered poor even if the minimum wage was £64,000 an hour.
"They were poor - mother was poor, father was poor, even the butler was poor"

 

[Butts]

Define poor

....or rich come to that

 

[Tetchytyke]

People who vote differently to you are not necessarily confused or bullied!

Nope, but plenty have been, like that simple soul in the audience on Question Time a few weeks ago who voted Tory and is now astounded- ASTOUNDED I TELL THEE- that they were about to cut her tax credits and force her into destitution.

What did she think was going to happen?

Understanding that many people don't see life as a Star Wars movie with obvious goodies and baddies is the key to understanding how to win the swing vote and win elections.

I understand swing voters, people who will vote on policies at any given time. I actually have more respect for those than the partisan ones who will always vote for the same team, regardless of what they do.

I disagree about obvious baddies and goodies though. Emperor Palpatine David Cameron is about as obvious a baddy as you get

 

[fowler9]

Anyone who thinks cutting benefits will lead to companies paying more lives in a fantasy realm or just doesn't care. The company I work for has a fixed price contract with the Government. If they cut benefits most of the staff will simply be worse off. There is no more money. Society could change this but the ones in control won't.