Turn on thread page Beta

Conservative government... good or bad? watch

  • View Poll Results: Conservatives win
    = good
    52.94%
    = bad
    47.06%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    That last comment is not what champagne socialists do. They would take the same amount of money from themselves before redistributing it.

    They do contribute, they just don't give away all their money. Do you know why? Because they think they can use the money they have and the influence it affords them to change the way things systematically work in this country. Giving away their money is very much a short term solution. People like you may only think in the short term, but these champagne socialists actually think about what effect they can have on the country after their donations have run out.

    Honestly, my argument is hardly radical. It came up in one of my Oxford critical reasoning tests It's really not hard to prove that your thinking is very uncritical and unintelligent here.
    I will accept when I see.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Why? Too stubborn to accept there's a problem?
    There is no problem.


    (Original post by Inexorably)
    The problem is that not everyone is feeling the benefit. Average wages still haven't returned to pre-recession levels, people are having to go onto zero hour contracts without knowing how often they'll be able to work, house prices are rocketing and pushing the younger generation away from housing, food banks usage has skyrocketed etc.
    Well of course not everyone will feel the benefit of the economy because we are still below our 2008 GDP. Fact is we are recovering much better and faster than the alternatives, and I wholly encourage every poor government-hating person to move out to Greece and Spain if they prefer their higher welfare.

    First let's get one thing clear: A ban on zero hour contracts means that four fifths of those employed on them will become unemployed. Surely, any remotely-generous person would agree that employment is better than unemployment, both for the economy and wider society?

    Also, two thirds of people employed on zero hours are happy with their work-life balance, compared to half on full time.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

    House prices are rocketing? Yes, in London. The majority of people in London are immigrants anyway. House prices rising is not a long-term sustainable market force and is bound to fall within this decade.

    Considering that one fifth of food bank users are drug users, I don't actually care. Many food banks have also reported that a small minority (10%) often enter and request support while intoxicated, even more reason for me not to care. If you can't sort out your household budget, then the state and society has no reason to support you - you failed at life and are wasting the money of taxpayers.

    11 million people in the UK are on welfare (excluding pensioners). Can you tell me why food bank use is less than 10%? Surely, if it is true that people must resort to charity food in order to survive because the welfare is so low, the number should be much closer to 100%?



    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Nobody is advocating for complete socialism here, but the fact is the conservatives have done absolutely jack **** to protect the poorest in society.
    I agree totally. I find it disgusting that the poor received a 4000 personal allowance intake during the life of the last Parliament.

    If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2010 would be 8600, which would mean they would keep 13 280 of their money and paid 1720 in tax.

    If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2015 would be 4400, which would mean they would keep 14 120 of their money and paid 880 in tax.

    This means that the 12 million people working on the minimum wage contribute 10.56 billion in tax in 2015, whereas they would have paid 20.64 billion in tax in 2010 on today's wages.

    If the poor had a higher share of the burden as they deserve (because they are scroungers), that would mean the Conesrvatives would only have to make TWO billion savings in welfare rather than TWELVE.

    We need to end the burden on the rich. The poor need to pay their fair share. I am going to my local Conservative office and signing the petition to cancel the personal allowance increase. The poor have had it way too good over this recession.

    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Inequality is always going to happen, but that doesn't mean the government should turn their back on the poor.
    Too bad it didn't.



    Yeah too bad inequality today is on the same level as Thatcher before Labour ruined it and gave more cash to their cronies.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...argin-25-years
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, simply because all other choices are poor too. I want our government to be culturally liberal, but economically libertarian. Who would support such policies? We have the Tories being conservative, Labour being chavvy, LibDems being whimpy, UKIP being 'Republican', and Greens being very socialist. No where do we have the liberal parties found on Mainland Europe.

    I do wish we had a more diverse government. If EU's parliament can be so diverse, I think Parliament can too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theroyalwhigs)
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, simply because all other choices are poor too. I want our government to be culturally liberal, but economically libertarian. Who would support such policies? We have the Tories being conservative, Labour being chavvy, LibDems being whimpy, UKIP being 'Republican', and Greens being very socialist. No where do we have the liberal parties found on Mainland Europe.

    I do wish we had a more diverse government. If EU's parliament can be so diverse, I think Parliament can too.
    What are 'culturally liberal' policies?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Apologies for delayed reply as once again, another quote hasn't shown up in my notifications

    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    Well of course not everyone will feel the benefit of the economy because we are still below our 2008 GDP. Fact is we are recovering much better and faster than the alternatives, and I wholly encourage every poor government-hating person to move out to Greece and Spain if they prefer their higher welfare.
    Higher welfare =/= bankrupting the country. It is possible to have a sensible level (what we have at present) without completely crippling the economy.

    First let's get one thing clear: A ban on zero hour contracts means that four fifths of those employed on them will become unemployed. Surely, any remotely-generous person would agree that employment is better than unemployment, both for the economy and wider society?
    I don't actually support a total ban on zero hour contracts. I'm merely using them as a point to display that more 'poor people' may be employed, but not necessarily in a secure and comfortable living/financial situation.

    Also, two thirds of people employed on zero hours are happy with their work-life balance, compared to half on full time.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984
    Well evidently. If you work less hours you're bound to be able to manage work-life more, but not necessarily your finances.

    Considering that one fifth of food bank users are drug users, I don't actually care.
    And the other 80pcnt would be... animals? plants?

    Many food banks have also reported that a small minority (10%) often enter and request support while intoxicated, even more reason for me not to care. If you can't sort out your household budget, then the state and society has no reason to support you - you failed at life and are wasting the money of taxpayers.
    Congratulations on completely disregarding all food bank users because a minority of them are drug users or intoxicated. You've managed to ignore the issue and treat it like the elephant in the room just to satisfy your false belief the conservatives aren't destroying the lives of the poor.


    ]11 million people in the UK are on welfare (excluding pensioners). Can you tell me why food bank use is less than 10%? Surely, if it is true that people must resort to charity food in order to survive because the welfare is so low, the number should be much closer to 100%?
    You know full on well this is going to depend entirely on the family/people receiving welfare. A family of five who rent will (most likely) struggle by more on welfare than a single person living with a relative...


    I agree totally. I find it disgusting that the poor received a 4000 personal allowance intake during the life of the last Parliament.
    Wonder if that 4000 increase was even worth it considering the amount of people employed in low-skill and low-hour jobs

    If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2010 would be 8600, which would mean they would keep 13 280 of their money and paid 1720 in tax.

    If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2015 would be 4400, which would mean they would keep 14 120 of their money and paid 880 in tax.

    This means that the 12 million people working on the minimum wage contribute 10.56 billion in tax in 2015, whereas they would have paid 20.64 billion in tax in 2010 on today's wages.
    Ahhh I see. So the government now increases the rate of personal allowance to = less tax = they have more reasoning to slash expenditure in areas such as welfare and education. Got it!

    We need to end the burden on the rich.
    ******* lold. If the rich have such a "burden" please do explain why their wealth has increased astoundingly over the past few years and why London has more millionaires compared to a few years ago?

    The poor have had it way too good over this recession.
    Wow.

    Yeah too bad inequality today is on the same level as Thatcher before Labour ruined it and gave more cash to their cronies.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...argin-25-years
    Hey great article. I love the part where it says "but coalition's benefit curbs may also reverse trend".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Higher welfare =/= bankrupting the country. It is possible to have a sensible level (what we have at present) without completely crippling the economy.
    So you're saying that the level of welfare at present is sensible? Well thanks for acknowledging, do I suppose I converted you to common sense?

    (Original post by Inexorably)
    I don't actually support a total ban on zero hour contracts. I'm merely using them as a point to display that more 'poor people' may be employed, but not necessarily in a secure and comfortable living/financial situation.
    If you don't support a total ban on zero hour contracts then people will continue to work on zero contracts because it's not illegal, therefore rendering your alternative completely irrelevant.


    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Well evidently. If you work less hours you're bound to be able to manage work-life more, but not necessarily your finances.
    The government tax credits lift people up to more or less equivalent level to those who don't have zero hours. There's no difference here other than the fact that the government saves money on welfare because instead of paying 8 pounds an hour to a person it pays 4 and the corporation pays 4. Much better, no? Also, people on zero-hours tend to have lower rates of food bank use than their full-time and unemployed counterparts, thought I'd mention.



    (Original post by Inexorably)
    And the other 80pcnt would be... animals? plants?
    The other 80% are irresponsible financiers who clearly cannot utilise their budget properly while the other 10 million people on benefits did already.


    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Congratulations on completely disregarding all food bank users because a minority of them are drug users or intoxicated. You've managed to ignore the issue and treat it like the elephant in the room just to satisfy your false belief the conservatives aren't destroying the lives of the poor.
    I am disregarding food banks because they clearly imply that there is a huge part of society (30%) who waste money on illegal (drugs) or immoral (alcohol) substances. Until this is reduced to a minimal point, I see no reason to increase welfare because clearly a huge part will be wasted.




    (Original post by Inexorably)
    You know full on well this is going to depend entirely on the family/people receiving welfare. A family of five who rent will (most likely) struggle by more on welfare than a single person living with a relative...
    If a couple who are in poverty have 3 children they failed already. And where's their child benefit, anyway? Did they make sure to use the government program which outlaw banks to charge for a service (current account) or do they waste 30 pounds a month because they couldn't bother to read instructions?

    If they are renting then they should use social housing, after the greedy people on welfare who have 5 rooms for a two-person household are forced out of their home and downsized through the efficient and justified bedroom tax.


    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Wonder if that 4000 increase was even worth it considering the amount of people employed in low-skill and low-hour jobs
    What? So you are against the government issuing a tax cut for poor people because they are poor? Make your mind up, are you pro-poor or anti-poor? You're beginning to sound like a Thatcherite. I'm sure people on the minimum wage who can budget properly will be very happy they had a one thousand pound tax cut. But then again, what do you care? You clearly are in favour of the poor sharing a bigger burden.



    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Ahhh I see. So the government now increases the rate of personal allowance to = less tax = they have more reasoning to slash expenditure in areas such as welfare and education. Got it!
    Yes, because they care about poor people. Then again, according to you they shouldn't, they should cripple the poor instead.


    (Original post by Inexorably)
    ******* lold. If the rich have such a "burden" please do explain why their wealth has increased astoundingly over the past few years and why London has more millionaires compared to a few years ago?
    Because the UK established a tax haven policy in 2009 to encourage more rich people to immigrate and buy luxury goods so they maximise VAT taxes. That's why data is skewed. Before you say "tax them", they wouldn't be here without those policies anyway, they'd leave, and take their VAT with them.

    The UK tax revenue from the top 1% is TWO FIFTHS of our budget. The next 9% combined with the top 1% is TWO THIRDS of our budget. This is much higher in 2007, because the richest 10% only paid HALF (around 55%) of our budget. Yes, the burden is increasing.



    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Wow.
    That's my response to your arguments.

    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Hey great article. I love the part where it says "but coalition's benefit curbs may also reverse trend".
    Classic Labourite. Ignore every single fact stated but focus on the forecast from a left-wing paper that does everything to criticise the Cons.

    By the way, the forecast is wrong, inequality has fallen as per ONS statistics for 2014. Was somewhere in Osborne's speeches but not sure what to google.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theroyalwhigs)
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, simply because all other choices are poor too. I want our government to be culturally liberal, but economically libertarian. Who would support such policies? We have the Tories being conservative, Labour being chavvy, LibDems being whimpy, UKIP being 'Republican', and Greens being very socialist. No where do we have the liberal parties found on Mainland Europe.

    I do wish we had a more diverse government. If EU's parliament can be so diverse, I think Parliament can too.
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    What are 'culturally liberal' policies?
    I made a thread minutes before the election which summarised what I think.

    Environment, LGBT, Animal Rights, Human Rights, Civil Liberties, Secularism, drug liberalisation, self-defence, lassiez-faire cultural polices*, no oil/gas, pro-automation, pro-offshoring, pro-globalisation etc...
    I'm kinda socialist; I had someone tell me that I wasn't socialist, but I do think we need a safety net (and ropes to allow everyone to climb up (think development bank)).

    I'm OTT supportive of EU, and I would support a similar model for our Commonwealth. I'm sympathetic to devolution/localism, and I support efforts to secularise government.

    A smaller House of Lords should be merged into HM Privy Council, and powers handed to our Royal Family. Instead of 'hiring' on heredity, it should be based on merit (a bit like the current Privy Council).

    Parliament should have it's constituency boundaries redrawn, and be elected using D'Hont method.

    Finally, everyone in the court system should be allotted.

    Government should have five bodies: Crown, Parliament, Judiciary, Bank, and Ombudsman; Bank and Ombudsman should have a 'troika' of heads appointed by Crown, Parliament and Judiciary.

    I am pro-EU and pro-Commonwealth, pro-devolution, and pro-secular.


    I want to diversify government as I think it's very 'undemocratic' to allow the majority to rule over the minority; this can be done my moving powers to our Royals and our Courts. But it's very unlikely for Tories to support such a move.

    Sometimes I think I'm culturally left of the Greens but economically right of the Tories.

    * I use the term "lassiez-faire cultural polices" to get across my dislike for intrusive governments - I like small government.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Broadly good. At least we'll have a stable economy again by the next time Labour get voted in to break it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    I agree totally. I find it disgusting that the poor received a 4000 personal allowance intake during the life of the last Parliament.

    If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2010 would be 8600, which would mean they would keep 13 280 of their money and paid 1720 in tax.

    If someone earns 15 000, their taxable income in 2015 would be 4400, which would mean they would keep 14 120 of their money and paid 880 in tax.

    This means that the 12 million people working on the minimum wage contribute 10.56 billion in tax in 2015, whereas they would have paid 20.64 billion in tax in 2010 on today's wages.
    You've ignored NI and the rise in NMW.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quady)
    You've ignored NI and the rise in NMW.
    Unless I missed something in reading what they had to say neither is really relevant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Unless I missed something in reading what they had to say neither is really relevant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well raise NMW and the numbers because wrong.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quady)
    Well raise NMW and the numbers because wrong.
    I really don't see how the change in NMW is relevant since it was stated that the same figure is being used for 2010, no adjustments of any kind. Might not be representative of reality, but for the dodgy model NMW is irrelevant entirely, and NI irrelevant in that the amount is the same in both cases.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theroyalwhigs)

    I'm kinda socialist; I had someone tell me that I wasn't socialist, but I do think we need a safety net (and ropes to allow everyone to climb up (think development bank)).

    Sometimes I think I'm culturally left of the Greens but economically right of the Tories.
    t.
    You don't have to be a socialist to support a welfare net. Indeed, the NHS and the welfare state were originally envisaged by:Liberals.

    By the sound of it you';re basically a Centrist Liberal, like me!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I really don't see how the change in NMW is relevant since it was stated that the same figure is being used for 2010, no adjustments of any kind. Might not be representative of reality, but for the dodgy model NMW is irrelevant entirely, and NI irrelevant in that the amount is the same in both cases.
    It is stated, its just a bit mad.

    Someone in 1985 on an above average wage wouldn't pay any income tax now, but so what?

    NI isn't the same in both cases...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I am...Neutral. I think a lot of the doom sayers are incredibly overblown.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/plat...s-victory.html

    If the Tories stick to their Modernization agenda as put forward by the Bright Blue group and stay in the EU I could actually end up supporting them, pending how the lib dems end up.

    http://brightblue.org.uk/index.php/a...is-bright-blue
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How could people have been undecided about voting for the Conservatives, a party which is only clearing up Labour's mess or voting for Labour, the party who left the letter which is apparently a "joke" in the Treasury, now that's not what I would want to vote for, I would rather lose my vote then have to vote for the Labour party. Labour are always scare-mongering people and it's pretty annoying. Btw those people protesting outside Downing Street, lead by Charlotte Church, is also rather annoying, she is faded singer who just wants to boost your career and it screams desperateness! In addition, how can people think that what those protestors wrote on the WW2 memorial ok? It was absolutely disgusting. Have some respect. And please can we stop this sterotype that all Conservative voters are rich please, I am from a working class background where we have always had to be tight with money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    You don't have to be a socialist to support a welfare net. Indeed, the NHS and the welfare state were originally envisaged by:Liberals.

    By the sound of it you';re basically a Centrist Liberal, like me!
    The problem with saying I'm Centrist is that I support substantial privatisations, the only difference being that they are still liberal/socialist. I advocate systems such as German Healthcare, Dutch Media, and so on...

    I am starting to think that I am actually more culturally Green. I can support Green on many of their policies.

    The problem with Tories is that they are the wrong type of right-wing economics, and they generally seem to make a mess of privatisations (backdoor privatisations of NHS, stupid regional monopolies...).

    But at least I'd be able to say I am Liberal Libertarian!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theroyalwhigs)
    The problem with saying I'm Centrist is that I support substantial privatisations, the only difference being that they are still liberal/socialist. I advocate systems such as German Healthcare, Dutch Media, and so on...

    I am starting to think that I am actually more culturally Green. I can support Green on many of their policies.

    The problem with Tories is that they are the wrong type of right-wing economics, and they generally seem to make a mess of privatisations (backdoor privatisations of NHS, stupid regional monopolies...).

    But at least I'd be able to say I am Liberal Libertarian!
    You do realise that the NHS is not being privatised, don't you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is possibly the most crushing election for anyone who believes in either social justice or sensible economics within living memory. Austerity is a failure for both growth and the most vulnerable people in this nation. Nurses are already looking at substantial pay cuts, even with all the "growth" George Osborne likes to remind us of. British values like human rights and free speech are already being attacked. The Tory secret weapon of English nationalism will backfire and break the Union. We have an uncertain future in Europe because of the rash EU referendum in 2017. And to top it all off, Boris Johnson is most likely going to become Prime Minister before 2020.

    Ah, makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordStark)
    Nurses are already looking at substantial pay cuts
    Are spine points being abolished? :O
 
 
 

2,985

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.