Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    A very good point. There are actually some lefties that I've met who really can't stand the fact that the Tories produced the first female prime (and as things stand May is the one likely to be facing Boris) minister and legalised gay marriage. Just wait until they produce a black PM for the denial ("well he's not really black because he pulled the ladder up after him or did'nt believe in miniority cause x and y").

    Free schools were also effectively a Blair idea blocked by Brown and picked up by the Tories.
    Yes, I've come across that as well.

    I think May's only real shot at becoming leader is if Cameron loses in May. If he wins (and I think he will win a humble majority thanks to the economy and the PR disaster that is Miliband) I think a more amicable Blair-Brown handover will occur with Osborne or Boris. And as much as I would love for the Conservatives to have the first black PM (there aren't a lot of contenders at the moment), I think Chukka Ummunna has the best shot as he's virtually certain to be the next Labour leader if Miliband loses.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    if cameron wins the next election then i think sajid javid will become the next tory leader but if he loses then it will likely be may. may would be a great choice i think


    ps i wish david davis was prime minister. he would have been such a great leader i feel
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I guess most people here are not old enough to have experience how Labour systematically ruined this country... and if you have to ask how you have not been paying attention long.

    Conservatives for all there faults are not afraid to do whats unpopular for the greater good and actually have reduced the deficit by following a strict plan whilst labour simply gave you a blind fold and a hand job then told you its all going to be alright.

    PS None of this means I support Conservatives (heathens)... just that they can do the job regardless.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by debz1231)
    I guess most people here are not old enough to have experience how Labour systematically ruined this country... and if you have to ask how you have not been paying attention long.
    I was certainly around... I'm still going to have to ask you to expand on this though.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Conservatism has turned into a more pragmatic ideology, they tend to lean towards 'safe' policies and that's why the general public vote for them, at least enough to make a coalition. There is naturally opposition to some of their policies, some which are of course ridiculous such as porn censorship. Plus look at alternatives, Labour is hardly offering solutions to economic problems and are seen to be incredibly weak, Lib Dems have tarnished themselves, what's next UKIP? haha.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Its interesting that in apparently blind policy tests it is Tory policy that tends to be more popular than Labour policy suggesting as some suspect that its a brand problem (this may show itself in right wing non voters in places like the north east turning out for Ukip next time). Importantly though in the marginals (tend to be upper working/lower middle class seats), ideologies like Blairism have broken through for Labour though an actual left wing labour government has not won for 40 years now.

    When people talk about opposition to Tory policy its worth noting that its from people who never voted for them anyway. Few people in the NUT are going to support a government that values being British and despite screaming about welfare, the benefits cap is probably the most popular policy introduced by any government in decades.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Its interesting that in apparently blind policy tests it is Tory policy that tends to be more popular than Labour policy suggesting as some suspect that its a brand problem (this may show itself in right wing non voters in places like the north east turning out for Ukip next time). Importantly though in the marginals (tend to be upper working/lower middle class seats), ideologies like Blairism have broken through for Labour though an actual left wing labour government has not won for 40 years now.

    When people talk about opposition to Tory policy its worth noting that its from people who never voted for them anyway. Few people in the NUT are going to support a government that values being British and despite screaming about welfare, the benefits cap is probably the most popular policy introduced by any government in decades.
    Related to the first point, Conservative policy is also best known, or at least people think they know it. I suppose they have the advantage of being on government, but even so.
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/27...edge-policies/
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Das Auto)
    Because many people have conservative views and feel as if the party represents best what they stand for out of the options available.
    Seeing as they don't have conservative views, and seeing as the 3 main parties all perform the same actions, and don't do according to when they promise, I have to wonder why people keep voting for them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Conservatives are most trusted with the economy and come across better than Labour do in terms of public image.
    Unfortunately many people are too lazy or busy to care about instrusion in their lives,censoring of social media, privatisation of everything under the sun,common bare faced lies and fracking under peoples homes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by debz1231)
    I guess most people here are not old enough to have experience how Labour systematically ruined this country... and if you have to ask how you have not been paying attention long.

    Conservatives for all there faults are not afraid to do whats unpopular for the greater good and actually have reduced the deficit by following a strict plan whilst labour simply gave you a blind fold and a hand job then told you its all going to be alright.

    PS None of this means I support Conservatives (heathens)... just that they can do the job regardless.
    The greater good?
    If by the 'greater good' you mean for the good of their extremely wealthy supporters, bankers and corporations at the expense of EVERYONE else then yes, 'greater good' indeed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The real reason is that they have the entire media and big business on their side. People believe what they read and hear, big businesses and the media massively favour Conservatives because their policies suit them.

    Our media is outrageously biased.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SJSS)
    Conservatives are most trusted with the economy and come across better than Labour do in terms of public image.
    Unfortunately many people are too lazy or busy to care about instrusion in their lives,censoring of social media, privatisation of everything under the sun,common bare faced lies and fracking under peoples homes.

    Labour gave out twice as many contracts to private firms than the tories have
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Making the house of lords elected would defeat the whole bloody point of it.

    Anyway, I would vote conservatives mainly due to the fact that their economic policy is a million times better than labour's (i study economics, trust me). But as you say, their social policy is disastrous.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by debz1231)
    I guess most people here are not old enough to have experience how Labour systematically ruined this country... and if you have to ask how you have not been paying attention long.

    Conservatives for all there faults are not afraid to do whats unpopular for the greater good and actually have reduced the deficit by following a strict plan whilst labour simply gave you a blind fold and a hand job then told you its all going to be alright.

    PS None of this means I support Conservatives (heathens)... just that they can do the job regardless.
    They didn't ruin this country the global financial crisis(the word global mean anything to you) it means that it happened worldwide so you blame it on Labour is silly and the UK actually did a lot better during the crisis than a lot of countries like Ireland,Spain and Greece.If the Conservatives were in power at the time they would have been given the blame and would have been just the same they would have spent less but taxed less.

    Also read this if you think the Tories are really good at handling the economy.I remember hearing on the new a couple of months ago that the Tories wanted to cut benefits more and drop taxes, does this really hint at a Government that cares about the deficit surely then they would cut benefits and rise taxes its clear they want to take from the poor and give to the rich not cut the deficit.The Governments handling of the economy has shown how out of touch they are they claim to understand the effects the recession is having and yet wages barely rise and benefits are cut, meaning those most vulnerable due to the recession are made more vulnerable.Surely if you understood how hard it has been for some people then you would realise that you couldn't cut the incomes of those people and thus should cut those who already have a good enough income?

    The Tories are a horrible party who are trying to kill off the poor with benefit sanctions and ATOS schemes to be fair Labour did start it, which is probably why people are voting the Conservatives because Labour aren't that much better which is why you should vote Green.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    They didn't ruin this country the global financial crisis(the word global mean anything to you) it means that it happened worldwide so you blame it on Labour is silly...
    Well, that logic is poor, the fact that it's global doesn't mean that it can't be due to one individual. If Obama or Putin spontaneously decided to fire all their nation's nuclear weapons then they alone would be responsible for the GLOBAL catastrophe that follows.

    Also read this if you think the Tories are really good at handling the economy.
    Oh god, people are still stupid enough to call on this? A part that inherets a deficit of £154bn and cuts it by 50% proportional to GDP, or about 40% I believe it is in absolute terms is trivially going to rack up a huge amount of extra debt, but at the same time all you have to do is look at Labour's management of the BUDGET, after all, this is about the budget, not the economy, where they balanced the books in the 1997-2001 term because they pledged to, but then for their other 9 years in power they ran at a deficit because they knew they could fudge the numbers, as long as they made sure the deficit was lower than growth they could say they were reducing the national debt while they were doing no such thing; fiscal irresponsibility. Don't forget, that borrowing isn't really borrowing, it's just deferring tax (assuming no defaults). Our parent's generation borrowing £1 now will mean we're taxed, say, £1.20 in 10 years time. Of course, that ignores that we'll just get new borrowing and defer it to our children and grandchildren.

    I remember hearing on the new a couple of months ago that the Tories wanted to cut benefits more and drop taxes, does this really hint at a Government that cares about the deficit surely then they would cut benefits and rise taxes its clear they want to take from the poor and give to the rich not cut the deficit.
    So continuing their plan of cutting expenses and cutting taxes (for everybody, not just the rich) means that the defict won't be cut? Well then, explain to me how the deficit has been cut. There is a limit to how much revenue can be reasonably raised through taxes, paradoxically, raising rates beyond that point doesn't raise revenues and, again paradoxically, you increase the revenues by deceasing the rates. To quote Kennedy:
    (Original post by John F. Kennedy, 1962)
    ...the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now
    Oh, and that threshold, it's lower our tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, it's in the mid 30s, not the 40s.

    The Governments handling of the economy has shown how out of touch they are they claim to understand the effects the recession is having and yet wages barely rise and benefits are cut, meaning those most vulnerable due to the recession are made more vulnerable.Surely if you understood how hard it has been for some people then you would realise that you couldn't cut the incomes of those people and thus should cut those who already have a good enough income?
    Alternatively help stimulate job growth and cut taxes for everybody in work, boosting their income. And you seem to only selectively quote the IFS, there is month after month figures published by the IFS saying that the middle earners are hit hardest. I swear I shared one recently, but apparently not, so here's a couple:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...l-Studies.html
    From mid 2013, the top 10% are £3k worse off, from 2009-13 their salaries rose by 8% less than inflation, however it's now catching up. When you look at the population as a whole, by 2015-16 they will be 5.5% worse off, the average household will be 5.4% and the bottom 10% only 3.4% worse off. i.e., the rich are hit harder than the poor

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...warns-IFS.html
    Then you get that these are also the people who have had their child benefit cut, which isn't exactly an inconsiderable amount. When you throw in tax and benefit changes the two worst off groups are the very poorest and the richest, and the childless are better off.

    The Tories are a horrible party who are trying to kill off the poor with benefit sanctions and ATOS schemes to be fair Labour did start it, which is probably why people are voting the Conservatives because Labour aren't that much better which is why you should vote Green.
    wait wait wait wait. From all you said earlier your conclusion is green? Well, I guess by your poor measure of fiscal responsibility they would make everybody look god.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well, that logic is poor, the fact that it's global doesn't mean that it can't be due to one individual. If Obama or Putin spontaneously decided to fire all their nation's nuclear weapons then they alone would be responsible for the GLOBAL catastrophe that follows.


    Oh god, people are still stupid enough to call on this? A part that inherets a deficit of £154bn and cuts it by 50% proportional to GDP, or about 40% I believe it is in absolute terms is trivially going to rack up a huge amount of extra debt, but at the same time all you have to do is look at Labour's management of the BUDGET, after all, this is about the budget, not the economy, where they balanced the books in the 1997-2001 term because they pledged to, but then for their other 9 years in power they ran at a deficit because they knew they could fudge the numbers, as long as they made sure the deficit was lower than growth they could say they were reducing the national debt while they were doing no such thing; fiscal irresponsibility. Don't forget, that borrowing isn't really borrowing, it's just deferring tax (assuming no defaults). Our parent's generation borrowing £1 now will mean we're taxed, say, £1.20 in 10 years time. Of course, that ignores that we'll just get new borrowing and defer it to our children and grandchildren.


    So continuing their plan of cutting expenses and cutting taxes (for everybody, not just the rich) means that the defict won't be cut? Well then, explain to me how the deficit has been cut. There is a limit to how much revenue can be reasonably raised through taxes, paradoxically, raising rates beyond that point doesn't raise revenues and, again paradoxically, you increase the revenues by deceasing the rates. To quote Kennedy:

    Oh, and that threshold, it's lower our tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, it's in the mid 30s, not the 40s.


    Alternatively help stimulate job growth and cut taxes for everybody in work, boosting their income. And you seem to only selectively quote the IFS, there is month after month figures published by the IFS saying that the middle earners are hit hardest. I swear I shared one recently, but apparently not, so here's a couple:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...l-Studies.html
    From mid 2013, the top 10% are £3k worse off, from 2009-13 their salaries rose by 8% less than inflation, however it's now catching up. When you look at the population as a whole, by 2015-16 they will be 5.5% worse off, the average household will be 5.4% and the bottom 10% only 3.4% worse off. i.e., the rich are hit harder than the poor

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...warns-IFS.html
    Then you get that these are also the people who have had their child benefit cut, which isn't exactly an inconsiderable amount. When you throw in tax and benefit changes the two worst off groups are the very poorest and the richest, and the childless are better off.


    wait wait wait wait. From all you said earlier your conclusion is green? Well, I guess by your poor measure of fiscal responsibility they would make everybody look god.
    I know that there is an optimum tax threshold as a result of tax dodging but this can be avoided by stopping the creation of tax loopholes(you could just simply put a law in place that said that you had to pay the maximum possible tax", the conservative government are creating ways for businesses to get away from paying taxes and a way around this is also to tax the middle class more as they don't have the means to tax dodge.

    No it is always the poorest who are hit hardest because a drop in income for middle class earners is meaningless as they are earning enough anyway so if they get a bit less income it doesn't matter as much as those struggling already(probably before the financial crisis) getting even less income, it makes sense that you simply can't cut the poor as they already don't get much.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    I know that there is an optimum tax threshold as a result of tax dodging but this can be avoided by stopping the creation of tax loopholes(you could just simply put a law in place that said that you had to pay the maximum possible tax", the conservative government are creating ways for businesses to get away from paying taxes and a way around this is also to tax the middle class more as they don't have the means to tax dodge.
    Sorry what? I can't quite understand what most of that means.

    No it is always the poorest who are hit hardest because a drop in income for middle class earners is meaningless as they are earning enough anyway so if they get a bit less income it doesn't matter as much as those struggling already(probably before the financial crisis) getting even less income, it makes sense that you simply can't cut the poor as they already don't get much.
    You can believe that if you want, but the figures speak for themselves. I thought you were doing maths at uni so should know that 5.5>5.4>3.4
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Sorry what? I can't quite understand what most of that means.


    You can believe that if you want, but the figures speak for themselves. I thought you were doing maths at uni so should know that 5.5>5.4>3.4
    The effect of the hit is worse for those who are poorest whilst a hit on middle class families is hardly worth complaining about as they already have enough money.For the middle class families to be as hit as the poor they would have to become as poor as the poor.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    The effect of the hit is worse for those who are poorest whilst a hit on middle class families is hardly worth complaining about as they already have enough money.For the middle class families to be as hit as the poor they would have to become as poor as the poor.
    Believe what you want.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Believe what you want.
    It is silly to try and say that middle class people are having it worst under this government when they still get substantially more than the working/underclass.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.