You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
They privatise public institutions, property and land.
Large portions of the public still vote conservative, and are being definitionally served by their choice.
They reap the benefits of corporate welfare but are against public welfare.
They use religion and fear to get votes instead of policies that represent the public's needs.
They favour deregulation to increase profit at the expense of public saftey.
They give tax breaks to the rich while increasing them for the public. They also refuse a living wage or minimum wage tied to inflation.
They don't pay a living wage so they force people onto welfare and then complain about people on welfare, while also being on corporate welfare (subsidies) and having their workers supported by the government.
They are hypocritically entitled.
They consist of and are funded by the entitled rich.
Same is true for all politicians. (The rich can bribe them with their own money, and thus have an incentive to seriously think about whom to support, but a single vote is unlikely to make a difference, and doesn't cost anything, so there's no such incentive there.)
Do you mean intentionally or unintentionally? If you mean intentionally, I would say that not all conservatives.
They privatise profits and socialise losses.
Politics veered to the right of centre for the past few decades. Opposition parties were also influenced by the entitled rich. Now with the internet, politics is veering to the left and is funded by the public.
This question polarises the argument... rich or public. Is there a third to be investigated; serving the country as a whole, and not just groups of people rich vs public.
What about economic growth, defence, foreign holdings for which we all benefit from.