Why the Tories are better for Britain

The first point on funding is simply false. Health spending has, as I said, increased in real terms in every year since 2010 and has been at a record high in every one of those years.

Your second point is arguable at best. Labour introduced it after the '45 election, but it built on a lot of ideas and ultimately the proposal was first put forward by a Conservative health minister in the wartime National Government under Churchill.



Care has always been rationed in the NHS - it has a finite budget. The challenges it faces are well-known, but it is a far better system than it was decades ago - even with the increased expectations placed upon it.

In terms of A&Es, this has been a popular complaint under many governments. People like having one nearby, sure, but the vast weight of evidence is that better equipped regional trauma centres have better outcomes than more dispersed, less comprehensive coverage. In my view, that's a fairly well established fact in health policy circles, yet every major political party has pretended otherwise at some point, because there's nothing better for a Parliamentary candidate than a "save our A&E" campaign.



I'm not really sure what your objection is to Universal Credit. If it's simply the levels, then that's really back to the tax credits issue. There are parts, like the wait period, that you'll find plenty of Conservatives who aren't particularly fond of.

Ultimately the core of UC was amalgamating benefits to simplify them and create a clearer taper as earnings increased - removing perverse disincentives to work. I've never heard a coherent argument made against that, other than that it is tricky to set up. Indeed, plenty of parties have spoken in favour of that principle.

I saw on BBC News that it was something like 70% of 18-24 year olds voted labour, compared to 70% of 60 year olds voting conservative. I like my generation

There haven't been any cuts to the NHS. NHS funding has grown above real terms since the Conservatives came in back in 2010 and will almost certainly continue to do so. The NHS, however, is pressured by an ageing population and increased expectations on the service. These are real challenges that health services around the world have to find solutions for - it's not some sort of Tory conspiracy.

In terms of social security, fine - you're a net beneficiary. But surely you recognise that you are part of a wider society and that simply increasing benefits will negatively affect that - and probably, in the end, ultimately you as well? The main savings from social security were from (1) the now-departed benefit freeze which was justified in terms of the deficit and didn't apply in many cases (eg, for recipients of disability benefits); (2) the reductions in tax credits, a system that was far more expensive and created a far broader entitlement than Labour expected when they reformed it and (3) moving people off of out-of-work benefits (ie, JSA and ESA) and into work - combined with a higher minimum wage level that reduced the level of in-work benefit entitlement, which is largely a good thing.

The first was a temporary measure to address a significant national problem. The others addressed significant problems that existed beforehand. Tax credits was probably the most difficult choice, because it does hit a lot of working people at the lower end of the income spectrum - but these are also ones who are benefiting from things like the National Living Wage and the raising of the tax-free personal allowance.

Any party in government would've had to wrestle with these issues.

Labour ended up as a weird Stalinist cult which would have ruined our country if they had sneaked into power. fortunately the Great British Public smelled a rat and took drastic steps to save our economy and way of life. i am very grateful for those humble people who lent Boris their votes after generations of voting for Labour.

Oh yes labour are such nasty people, wanting to help those in need by taxing the rich. Disadvantaged people are just that: disadvantaged compared to the middle class and some of the able working classes. Not lazy, not unmotivated, not scroungers or whatever else you want to call them.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

No one needs to be rich. Id welcome more equality, the gap is already too wide and getting worse under the Tories.

No one needs to be rich. Id welcome more equality, the gap is already too wide and getting worse under the Tories.

you know that Jezza is richer than Boris, yeah ?

you know that Jezza is richer than Boris, yeah ?

The young will turn into the old and soon like the Tories more.

Welcome to the tolerance of the modern left. The reason you are searching for, is the same reason me and you crossed swords briefly!

I'm a left wing man, you dont have to be far to the right to be more to the right than me. However I voted conservative and I found a whole new level of bigotry and hate, spewed at me for doing so by certain "liberal" people.

For balance this isn't new, traditional socialists did this to a degree particularly in the 70's in the trade unions and there are degoratory comments aimed at labour supporters in certain social circles. But this modern toxicity is the unfortunate home of the left, the "progressive left".

There really isn't enough irony to describe it.

Traitor.

You think it would be different with a Labour government?

Lol that made me laugh, funny I like it

Yes the Tories are better...if you're white, male and rich.

I beg to differ. Conservatives just welcome freedom, to anyone, of any race, of any social standing. Conservatives give you the freedom to try your best at whatever you want to do. However you also have the freedom to fail, something liberals cant rap their heads around.

Have the actually seen people who are in need? The only people in true need are the homeless, disabled (mentally as well) and any refugees who come here for safety. All Labour want to do is just increase welfare without any consideration to who actually needs it. I find many people who are "disadvantaged" are classed that way just because their family are supported on benefits or they get free school meals. Just because your family is poor doesn't mean you won't do well at school.