LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values,
...

You have a different opinion on what's happened politically over that time period if you think that's the case. Coming from someone who has voted tory during that period and is within your target age group.

Apologies, I don’t understand the argument/counter here.

The small c conservative institutions and values have not been aligned constantly over that time period.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

He's at it with the ageism again.

The theory is rather sympathetic to those who feel that, but sure, go ahead.

What, the theory that the poor old souls ca t adjust to change?

I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values, I can very well imagine how disorientating and threatening it can feel when they suddenly feel like they don't.

I think that's entirely understandable.

Not a sneer at old people for being old, but more trying to understand where this perspective is coming from, and not dismissing it as just hysterical rantings of an increasingly delusional part of the right.

It's not a delusional rant, it's campaigning. They've started operation fear the left, following the populist play book.

The only fundamental difference from normal campaigning is that one no longer needs to be inconvenienced by facts.

Sure, but if it's nonsense and no-one thinks that's true, no-one will listen to it.

So it must resonate with some people, and clearly it does as we (or I anyway) hear it repeated a lot. So I spent a bit of time thinking about why it does resonate and that was what I came up with.

I also think that from a certain perspective the general institutions that govern the world we live in are generally left, in the newer old/young, educated/not divide we've (I've) discussed at length on here.

You should see how my MIL bristles when I talk about DEI in passing.

If voting tory/labour is largely an age and education thing, and all the polling suggests it is, then the fact that the vast majority of tory voters are retired and labour voters are not has an impact, when all institutions are, by definition, run by "non-retired" people.

Of course that then makes those on the right/retired feel that those institutions are at odds with their own political viewpoint.

Not sure there is a particularly strong relationship between what resonates with people, what is nonsense or what happens to be true.

Surely as one of the generation who seeks out the news from the sources they already agree with, you should realise this?

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

He's at it with the ageism again.

The theory is rather sympathetic to those who feel that, but sure, go ahead.

What, the theory that the poor old souls ca t adjust to change?

I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values, I can very well imagine how disorientating and threatening it can feel when they suddenly feel like they don't.

I think that's entirely understandable.

Not a sneer at old people for being old, but more trying to understand where this perspective is coming from, and not dismissing it as just hysterical rantings of an increasingly delusional part of the right.

Time was, being slightly confused with the modern world was just seen as normal, not something to drag an entire political system into salving your slight feelings of alienation.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

He's at it with the ageism again.

The theory is rather sympathetic to those who feel that, but sure, go ahead.

What, the theory that the poor old souls ca t adjust to change?

I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values, I can very well imagine how disorientating and threatening it can feel when they suddenly feel like they don't.

I think that's entirely understandable.

Not a sneer at old people for being old, but more trying to understand where this perspective is coming from, and not dismissing it as just hysterical rantings of an increasingly delusional part of the right.

Time was, being slightly confused with the modern world was just seen as normal, not something to drag an entire political system into salving your slight feelings of alienation.

When they're the biggest voting cohort, however. (again, not being ageist - it's just demographics and the political reality).

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values,
...

You have a different opinion on what's happened politically over that time period if you think that's the case. Coming from someone who has voted tory during that period and is within your target age group.

Apologies, I don’t understand the argument/counter here.

The small c conservative institutions and values have not been aligned constantly over that time period.

Any examples?

I feel the civil service, as an example, was for a long time jobs for boys, they were often a certain type etc.

Same with the big companies.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

He's at it with the ageism again.

The theory is rather sympathetic to those who feel that, but sure, go ahead.

What, the theory that the poor old souls ca t adjust to change?

I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values, I can very well imagine how disorientating and threatening it can feel when they suddenly feel like they don't.

I think that's entirely understandable.

Not a sneer at old people for being old, but more trying to understand where this perspective is coming from, and not dismissing it as just hysterical rantings of an increasingly delusional part of the right.

It's not a delusional rant, it's campaigning. They've started operation fear the left, following the populist play book.

The only fundamental difference from normal campaigning is that one no longer needs to be inconvenienced by facts.

Sure, but if it's nonsense and no-one thinks that's true, no-one will listen to it.

So it must resonate with some people, and clearly it does as we (or I anyway) hear it repeated a lot. So I spent a bit of time thinking about why it does resonate and that was what I came up with.

I also think that from a certain perspective the general institutions that govern the world we live in are generally left, in the newer old/young, educated/not divide we've (I've) discussed at length on here.

You should see how my MIL bristles when I talk about DEI in passing.

If voting tory/labour is largely an age and education thing, and all the polling suggests it is, then the fact that the vast majority of tory voters are retired and labour voters are not has an impact, when all institutions are, by definition, run by "non-retired" people.

Of course that then makes those on the right/retired feel that those institutions are at odds with their own political viewpoint.

Not sure there is a particularly strong relationship between what resonates with people, what is nonsense or what happens to be true.

Surely as one of the generation who seeks out the news from the sources they already agree with, you should realise this?

Think that's pretty cross generational. Had the 'pupils identifying as cats' story regurgitated from Facebook by a couple of family friends a couple of weeks back. Was very satisfying watching teenage daughter politely explain to them how they should take Facebook with a pinch of salt.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

He's at it with the ageism again.

The theory is rather sympathetic to those who feel that, but sure, go ahead.

What, the theory that the poor old souls ca t adjust to change?

I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values, I can very well imagine how disorientating and threatening it can feel when they suddenly feel like they don't.

I think that's entirely understandable.

Not a sneer at old people for being old, but more trying to understand where this perspective is coming from, and not dismissing it as just hysterical rantings of an increasingly delusional part of the right.

It's not a delusional rant, it's campaigning. They've started operation fear the left, following the populist play book.

The only fundamental difference from normal campaigning is that one no longer needs to be inconvenienced by facts.

Sure, but if it's nonsense and no-one thinks that's true, no-one will listen to it.

So it must resonate with some people, and clearly it does as we (or I anyway) hear it repeated a lot. So I spent a bit of time thinking about why it does resonate and that was what I came up with.

I also think that from a certain perspective the general institutions that govern the world we live in are generally left, in the newer old/young, educated/not divide we've (I've) discussed at length on here.

You should see how my MIL bristles when I talk about DEI in passing.

If voting tory/labour is largely an age and education thing, and all the polling suggests it is, then the fact that the vast majority of tory voters are retired and labour voters are not has an impact, when all institutions are, by definition, run by "non-retired" people.

Of course that then makes those on the right/retired feel that those institutions are at odds with their own political viewpoint.

Not sure there is a particularly strong relationship between what resonates with people, what is nonsense or what happens to be true.

Surely as one of the generation who seeks out the news from the sources they already agree with, you should realise this?

In politics what resonates with people *is* the reality, whether it's bound up in fact or not.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values,
...

You have a different opinion on what's happened politically over that time period if you think that's the case. Coming from someone who has voted tory during that period and is within your target age group.

Apologies, I don’t understand the argument/counter here.

The small c conservative institutions and values have not been aligned constantly over that time period.

Any examples?

...
.

Nah. Just life experience and voting patterns. No way am I going to spend enough time to contemplate the past 40-50 years. The past 13 will suffice for the next election.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values,
...

You have a different opinion on what's happened politically over that time period if you think that's the case. Coming from someone who has voted tory during that period and is within your target age group.

Apologies, I don’t understand the argument/counter here.

The small c conservative institutions and values have not been aligned constantly over that time period.

Any examples?

...
.

Nah. Just life experience and voting patterns. No way am I going to spend enough time to contemplate the past 40-50 years. The past 13 will suffice for the next election.

Fair enough.

In my own 13 years experience I've seen quite a dramatic change in the kind of people who are running big international organisations and their priorities, and my friends in Whitehall say the same.

I think the criticism, if you want to call if that, the post-referendum governments had of the civil service being a long way culturally to what the government was trying to do was broadly accurate.

In my own world, as a narrow example, it is really really hard to over-estimate how important Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, has become to any hiring process for any organisation over 30 people.

That's changed a huge amount since I started working.

pblakeney

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

Something the medical profession could consider.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

He's at it with the ageism again.

The theory is rather sympathetic to those who feel that, but sure, go ahead.

What, the theory that the poor old souls ca t adjust to change?

I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values, I can very well imagine how disorientating and threatening it can feel when they suddenly feel like they don't.

I think that's entirely understandable.

Not a sneer at old people for being old, but more trying to understand where this perspective is coming from, and not dismissing it as just hysterical rantings of an increasingly delusional part of the right.

It's not a delusional rant, it's campaigning. They've started operation fear the left, following the populist play book.

The only fundamental difference from normal campaigning is that one no longer needs to be inconvenienced by facts.

Sure, but if it's nonsense and no-one thinks that's true, no-one will listen to it.

So it must resonate with some people, and clearly it does as we (or I anyway) hear it repeated a lot. So I spent a bit of time thinking about why it does resonate and that was what I came up with.

I also think that from a certain perspective the general institutions that govern the world we live in are generally left, in the newer old/young, educated/not divide we've (I've) discussed at length on here.

You should see how my MIL bristles when I talk about DEI in passing.

If voting tory/labour is largely an age and education thing, and all the polling suggests it is, then the fact that the vast majority of tory voters are retired and labour voters are not has an impact, when all institutions are, by definition, run by "non-retired" people.

Of course that then makes those on the right/retired feel that those institutions are at odds with their own political viewpoint.

Not sure there is a particularly strong relationship between what resonates with people, what is nonsense or what happens to be true.

Surely as one of the generation who seeks out the news from the sources they already agree with, you should realise this?

In politics what resonates with people *is* the reality, whether it's bound up in fact or not.

This is just semantics. We agree I think.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

He's at it with the ageism again.

The theory is rather sympathetic to those who feel that, but sure, go ahead.

What, the theory that the poor old souls ca t adjust to change?

I think if you've spent near 40-50 years of your life where institutions, both public and private who naturally and instinctively align with your small c conservative values, I can very well imagine how disorientating and threatening it can feel when they suddenly feel like they don't.

I think that's entirely understandable.

Not a sneer at old people for being old, but more trying to understand where this perspective is coming from, and not dismissing it as just hysterical rantings of an increasingly delusional part of the right.

It's not a delusional rant, it's campaigning. They've started operation fear the left, following the populist play book.

The only fundamental difference from normal campaigning is that one no longer needs to be inconvenienced by facts.

Sure, but if it's nonsense and no-one thinks that's true, no-one will listen to it.

So it must resonate with some people, and clearly it does as we (or I anyway) hear it repeated a lot. So I spent a bit of time thinking about why it does resonate and that was what I came up with.

I also think that from a certain perspective the general institutions that govern the world we live in are generally left, in the newer old/young, educated/not divide we've (I've) discussed at length on here.

You should see how my MIL bristles when I talk about DEI in passing.

If voting tory/labour is largely an age and education thing, and all the polling suggests it is, then the fact that the vast majority of tory voters are retired and labour voters are not has an impact, when all institutions are, by definition, run by "non-retired" people.

Of course that then makes those on the right/retired feel that those institutions are at odds with their own political viewpoint.

Not sure there is a particularly strong relationship between what resonates with people, what is nonsense or what happens to be true.

Surely as one of the generation who seeks out the news from the sources they already agree with, you should realise this?

In politics what resonates with people *is* the reality, whether it's bound up in fact or not.

This is just semantics. We agree I think.

Probably. How people collectively feel about stuff is valid, however infuriatingly wrong it actually is.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

Something the medical profession could consider.

Who'd want to be a doctor in the UK in 2023. If you're that bright, there are much more dignified and less humiliating ways to make a living.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

Something the medical profession could consider.

Who'd want to be a doctor in the UK in 2023. If you're that bright, there are much more dignified and less humiliating ways to make a living.

That involve saving lives?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

Something the medical profession could consider.

Who'd want to be a doctor in the UK in 2023. If you're that bright, there are much more dignified and less humiliating ways to make a living.

More I was referring to the phenomenon of nth generation medical families.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

Something the medical profession could consider.

Who'd want to be a doctor in the UK in 2023. If you're that bright, there are much more dignified and less humiliating ways to make a living.

Oh please. It's a hard job but they do alright.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

Something the medical profession could consider.

Who'd want to be a doctor in the UK in 2023. If you're that bright, there are much more dignified and less humiliating ways to make a living.

That involve saving lives?

The impression I get is the system actively gets in the way of that bit of the job.

The system treats you like sh!t, the patients do because they're at their wits end, the staff are all losing their mind because they don't have enough people to do the job, the building you're in is literally falling apart, the people you want to treat you can't because you have too much to do, the hours are terrible ,you can't book your own holiday because you'll inevitably have to cover for someone else.

It seems pretty awful.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

I'll suggest that is more prevalent in your bubble than in the population as a whole.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

I'll suggest that is more prevalent in your bubble than in the population as a whole.

If you're bored, go wiki the leaders of the civil service, big public institutions or big UK company and look at what schools they went to. Chances are, they did Oxbridge and if you can be bothered to look at who else did their course at Oxbridge at the same time, you'll soon spot the connections.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

I'll suggest that is more prevalent in your bubble than in the population as a whole.

If you're bored, go wiki the leaders of the civil service, big public institutions or big UK company and look at what schools they went to. Chances are, they did Oxbridge and if you can be bothered to look at who else did their course at Oxbridge at the same time, you'll soon spot the connections.

So nothings changed then?

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

I'll suggest that is more prevalent in your bubble than in the population as a whole.

If you're bored, go wiki the leaders of the civil service, big public institutions or big UK company and look at what schools they went to. Chances are, they did Oxbridge and if you can be bothered to look at who else did their course at Oxbridge at the same time, you'll soon spot the connections.

So nothings changed then?

The levels underneath .

In fact, I'm running a search for a CEO right now because, and I quote "half the workforce is now under 30 and they require a totally different type of inspiration. They are interested in sustainability, DEI etc which is an important part of our business and growth strategy but currently only represents 10% of revenues, so they need to be able to run the day-to-day and keep that profitable, but also keep the younger generation engaged".

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

I don't think the institutions have changed, they've always been centrist.
Labour went too far left and are now centralising while the tories went too far right and nobody knows their direction of travel.

Do you not think there's been a sea change in the type of people hired? When you start hiring on ability and not connections/accent, it changes the attitude quite abruptly.

I'll suggest that is more prevalent in your bubble than in the population as a whole.

If you're bored, go wiki the leaders of the civil service, big public institutions or big UK company and look at what schools they went to. Chances are, they did Oxbridge and if you can be bothered to look at who else did their course at Oxbridge at the same time, you'll soon spot the connections.

So nothings changed then?

The levels underneath .

In fact, I'm running a search for a CEO right now because, and I quote "half the workforce is now under 30 and they require a totally different type of inspiration. They are interested in sustainability, DEI etc which is an important part of our business and growth strategy but currently only represents 10% of revenues, so they need to be able to run the day-to-day and keep that profitable, but also keep the younger generation engaged".

That sounds like the under 30s are easily distracted requiring a particular management. That management will still come from the same old sources.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

That sounds like the under 30s are easily distracted requiring a particular management. That management will still come from the same old sources.

I'll try to to not take that personally as that's my job.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

..."half the workforce is now under 30 and they require a totally different type of inspiration. They are interested in sustainability...

I wonder how their interest in sustainability compares to their interest in holidaying in cahoots with the aviation industry.

rick_chasey

Ah yes, the old "you must wear a hairshirt if you are interested in the sustainability of the human race" argument.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

Ah yes, the old "you must wear a hairshirt if you are interested in the sustainability of the human race" argument.

You cannot claim any interest in "sustainability" beyond virtue signalling if you fly on your jollies. It really is that simple. Doing your recycling and using re-usable coffee cups at Starbucks isn't going to cut it.

super_davo

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah yes, the old "you must wear a hairshirt if you are interested in the sustainability of the human race" argument.

You cannot claim any interest in "sustainability" beyond virtue signalling if you fly on your jollies. It really is that simple. Doing your recycling and using re-usable coffee cups at Starbucks isn't going to cut it.

With respect.... flying may be horrendous for the environment, but it's far from the only thing we do that is. I don't think you can dismiss these smaller things as "virtue signalling" and "not going to cut it" as they all still need to happen in addition to reducing flights. And of all the many lifestyle changes we need to make, flying is going to be one of the hardest ones to break, because in many cases there is no ready made sustainable alternative. Flying from London to Edinburgh may be bonkers, but flying from London to New York isn't; there is no viable time / cost / practical alternative if you need to make that journey. Of course the last part is the hardest part; your definition of "need" will probably differ from the person making the journey, but it takes time to change minds.

We should however tax flights and subsidise trains to the point where its a no brainer financially to do short haul e.g. London / Edinburgh / Paris by train - if you don't make steps like that you'll never change mindsets.

First.Aspect

What happens of you want to go between two places that aren't London?