Casdon
madalene
There are plenty of them about. They don’t like the name though, even though it’s accurate.
Who says we don’t like the name? It’s really just another of those intended insults from the right that we laugh at, like woke lefties. The truth is, most people aren’t wounded by people who they are convinced have the wrong idea about something, whether those people are on the right or the left. Lack of compromise applies to everybody, very few are prepared to listen to views miles from their own, even the ones who purport to be in the middle.
Agreed, Casdon.
I see no hypocrisy in someone who lives a 'champagne' lifestyle (whatever that might mean - different things to different people, obviously) wanting others to have a fair deal too.
What's the alternative? Only allowing those who want to exploit others to drink anything other than beer? Keeping the 'finer things in life' from those who have to work for a living?
Apart from the sheer unpleasantness of wanting to do that, what happens to aspiration? I think that most people, whether they vote Labour or Conservative (or Republican or Democrat), have aspirations for themselves and their families. Most managers and business owners want those they manage or employ to have aspiration too - without it why would they do more than the minimum?
I also agree that it is difficult for anyone to be neutral about very much. I find it amusing when people post on a political thread to claim that they can see both sides of every argument. When someone is as naive as that it is always very obvious that they can't, whether they believe that to be the case or not.
Where people have no personal investment in a particular issue, of course it is possible to see two or more arguments, but even then, we tend to have a political perspective that pushes us to see through one lens or another.
I have no axe to grind about farming, for instance. I would argue that I can see that they have a grievance as regards IHT, and also that I can see why RR has brought them more closely in line with other taxpayers in that regard. If either 'side' wanted to persuade me to their cause, I would listen with genuine interest and weigh up the pros and cons. I don't slavishly follow any party or their policies, but as a Labour voter I would probably find their argument more persuasive though, as I share their world view.
I suppose it's the same for the WFP, although that is more contorted for me. I firmly believe in universal benefits and not means-tested ones. I do not want to see anyone living on an inadequate income. But equally, I see no reason why people like the friends I mentioned at the time, who can afford long holidays in Monte Carlo and expensive new kitchens being prioritised over young families working long hours for little money. When they moan about the 'cut' and claim to be speaking for the poor (who have never troubled them before) then my world view kicks in and my hatred of means-tests takes a back seat. It's not about slavishly doing anything - it's about views aligning.
?
