This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Could anyone tell me some good/bad things the Tories have done since they've been in?

Scroll to see replies

Without cuts how are you supposed to cut a deficit of 120 billion a year back then? That doesn't even include the interest payments on debt.

It's called living in the real world.

If you think cuts shouldn't continue is a different matter, they absolutely had to be done back then

Than may be they should of cut wages to themselves than do cut backs for the poor people, people that cannot find jobs, people can't afford home and
healthcare.

Why make same mistake the US has been doing for long time? Are they trying to make the UK like the US? The EU not done all these cut backs and they have less poverty, less crime, less poor people and better healthcare.

It makes no sense what they are doing.

Reply 21

username1148663

Original post by moonhill

Even if mps took no salary it would have saved 0.03% of the 120 billion a year back in 2010.

You can use as much hyperbole as you like you haven't said what they should have done instead.

This is the problem, disagree with it all you like, that's what a healthy democracy is for, however come up with workable alternatives

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 22

username2965904

It's a struggle but two come to mind only:

The overseas aid pledge (which the Daily Mail and Express are campaigning against)
Same sex marriage (though it needed Labour votes to go through).

Reply 23

JWKelly99

Original post by alfredholmes

Increase taxes instead of reducing taxes for the richest organisations? It is the large corporations and free market capitalism that caused the 2008 crash, so why should there be further cuts that effect the normal people who had nothing to do with the crash so that the large institutions can fail to try and prove their blatantly flawed ideology? The conservatives can pretend to be the party of common sense but their allegiance to the rich is obvious and not good for society.

It was shown by labour in the 60s that if you increase tax on the rich they go elsewhere/ keep there money offshore and you end up with less tax revenue. the 2008 financial crisis was caused by a combination of labour (deregulating the market to make to easier for the poorer in society to get credit) and the American banks selling bad debt to the uk banks.
If you work hard, go to university and get a good job, start your own business, risk everything and do well, why should you pay for some scum that doesn't want to work for anything and expects everybody else to pay for his drug and gambling addictions?

Reply 24

JWKelly99

Original post by moonhill

There are 650 MPs in the uk. They are paid around £60,000 a year. so cutting them down to the average earnings of £27,000 a year would give a total of £21.5 million. How is that gonna pay for carbons £300,000,000 a year proposal for the police, his £3,000,000 a year gap in education and all the other things. Hate to break it to you mate but that is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard to fix the deficit issue in the UK

Reply 25

RF_PineMarten

Original post by paul514

Even if mps took no salary it would have saved 0.3% of the 120 billion a year back in 2010.

You can use as much hyperbole as you like you haven't said what they should have done instead.

This is the problem, disagree with it all you like, that's what a healthy democracy is for, however come up with workable alternatives

Posted from TSR Mobile

Higher taxes on the very top earners. The very richest people in the UK have pretty much doubled their wealth and received tax cuts in the same time lower income people have faced wage stagnation/decline (nearly as bad as in Greece ffs) and welfare cuts in the name of "austerity". Not to mention multinational corporations avoiding tax on a large scale.

Perhaps if they applied austerity fairly to all sectors of society and not sheltered the richest from it then they'd have actually made progress without the poorest people taking the burden.

Reply 26

username1148663

Original post by RF_PineMarten

The tax cuts of dropping from 50 to 45%? That labour upper tax rate that lasted a few months?

The cutting of corporation tax which resulted in more jobs, higher investment and higher corporation tax receipts?

Or the raising of the of the tax free allowance which benefits everyone?

Please give specifics

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 27

univ4464

Original post by paul514

I think there are too many factors to argue that the cutting of taxes resulted in higher employment and investment. There is nothing to say these improvements would not have come about if the tax rate had stayed the same. Also to claim that the cutting of tax will result in more revenue for government only holds true if higher corporation tax limits relative growth to a high enough degree, which is unlikely and impossible to prove.

Reply 28

username1148663

Original post by alfredholmes

I'm talking about what's happened not what would happen if done further.

There's plenty of data out there

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 29

univ4464

Original post by paul514

I'm talking about what's happened not what would happen if done further.

There's plenty of data out there

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes by saying:

paul514

The cutting of corporation tax which resulted in more jobs, higher investment and higher corporation tax receipts?

Posted from TSR Mobile

How do you know that the reduction in corporation tax was the sole reason for an increase in investment, employment and tax revenue. If you have an economy that is growing by its self, then all these things will increase without government intervention and the tax revenue will be even higher, so less cuts need to be made.

Reply 30

username1148663

Original post by alfredholmes

Yes by saying:

How do you know that the reduction in corporation tax was the sole reason for an increase in investment, employment and tax revenue. If you have an economy that is growing by its self, then all these things will increase without government intervention and the tax revenue will be even higher, so less cuts need to be made.

Because the data shows when they made the changes there was a rise in all of those indices at the corresponding times.

It's also widely accepted that those changes were the major factors for those rises.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 31

username1799249

Original post by Arran90

Computer science as part of the National Curriculum replacing that pathetic and boring ICT.

I don't trust Labour with upholding this subject.

Interesting you said this. One the one hand I agree. But on the other hand, they sacked of ICT all-together and replaced it with ECDL which is even duller and even more boring than ICT. In Gove's drive to make everyone a Classics Scholar much of degree CS has come down into A-level and GCSE is not dissimilar to the old A-level. The result is that Computer Science and IT is now out of reach of the majority of students which in the information age is pointless.

As for other bad things the Tories have done:
- Brexit (nightmare to come)
- NHS in crisis
- Social services in crisis
- Police in crisis
- Prison service in crisis
- Councils in crisis - we now have three weekly bin collections
- Schools in crisis
- Cuts to all areas of education

The only good thing I can think of is that they are building a new road to reduce congestion near my house but it is hardly a progressive move forward. Why not encourage people to work at home by investing in broadband?

Reply 32

username878267

Original post by paul514

After World War two we had debts of 120% GDP. Rather than cutting we massively increased spending and managed to reduced the debt by around 36%.

Similar story with FDR in the USA.

The idea that you need cuts to reduce the debt is fantasy economics and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding about how national economies work.

Reply 33

username1148663

Original post by Bornblue

I would say that what happened 84 to 72 years ago is irrelevant, the financial system is completely different.

I want to know what you think should have been done in 2010 to bring down the deficit, you don't even look at the debt until you control the day to day spending deficit.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 34

username878267

Original post by paul514

Why is it completely different? Economics is economics. Spending hugely led to massive economic growth and a reduction in the debt then. Why cannot it not do the same now?

Doing what America did under Obama. A stimulus package to create demand and promote growth.

The worrying figure is not public debt but private debt. Private debt has risen significantly under the Tories and that makes a financial crash far more likely as it did in 2008.

Yet people only seem to care about public debt.

Reply 35

Rakas21

Original post by Bornblue

We borrowed from the US to pay the existing debts and finished paying for it in 05.

Reply 36

Neopol

Oh goodness, where do we start?
Bad
−The NHS/social care crisis
−The Personal Independence Payment (PIP) debacle
−The Snooper's Charter
−"People go to food banks for many reasons."
−The National Living Wage
−Jeremy Hunt
−Michael Gove
−Boris Johnson

I've never been a Tory fan and I really liked Corbyn at first, but now it feels like all the major parties are either shooting themselves in the feet or cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 37

Chichaldo

Leaving the European Court of Justice (throw in taking away the Human Rights Act)?? Not letting legal migrants enter as much?? Bombing Libya and Syria (throwing trading arms with Saudi Arabia)?? Passing laws allowing them access into our private lives?? Good things?? What??

Original post by Rakas21

The Tories have done good in..

Increased the tax threshold
Ended grade inflation
Engaged in air strikes on Libya and Syria
Reduced the deficit from 10.4% of GDP to 2.9% of GDP.
Overseen moderate economic growth from 2013 onward.
Overseen record highs in employment.
Passing the Snoopers charter which substantially increases the scope of our intelligence services
Opposed taking refugees and kept us out of that horrid EU quota.
Are going to take us out of the ECJ and customs union.

What they have done badly..

Badger Cull
Incompetent implementation of welfare policy - Disability reviews and spare room subsidy policies are good things but were done horribly.
From a PR point of view they should never have allowed job centers to refer people to food banks, it has given Labour a stick to beat them with even though these people existed before 2010.
Although i commend them for making internal cuts within the NHS we are reaching a point where A&E is starting to struggle and waiting times are increasing. They have not been aggressive enough in stripping away waste within the NHS.

Reply 38

username878267

Original post by Rakas21

We borrowed from the US to pay the existing debts and finished paying for it in 05.

Public debt is far less dangerous than private debt.

Private debt is soaring and the Tories just shrug their shoulders. It's as if we learnt nothing from the financial crash.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 39

Rakas21

Original post by Bornblue

Public debt is far less dangerous than private debt.

Pribate debt is soaring and the Tories just shrug their shoulders. It's as if we learnt nothing from the financial crash.

Household, business and government debt should each be treated separately and we should look within those bounds at the segments.

Corporate debt for example is not especially bad even at high levels because it is unlikely that enough firms will go bust at once.

Household debt should essentially be split in two. Mortgage debt (i.e. secured) is very dangerous because of the amount involved and the fact is it is the primary asset. Even a 10% default rate could cost trillions. Actual household debt (i.e. credit cards) is concerning but not substantial enough to be especially dangerous (the percentage is high but it only amounts to about £60bn).

While we are not as close to collapse as you fear (mortgage lending is still well below 2007) i do agree that one of the worst policies of this government was the Help To Buy scheme which actively primed the credit market. It's only sad that Miliband called for a return to 07 lending levels.