Turn on thread page Beta

What is bad about the Conservative manifesto? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    in a summary please.

    im seeing a lot of people say like "goodbye nhs" and stuff but arent they putting £8b into the nhs? (although i do remember that i think that was just something they pulled out around the last days towards the election but they might not even be able to fund it?)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Trident. Creeping privatisation of the NHS. Ditto education. Denigration of the disabled. A lack of social justice.

    Of course, the manifesto may not have used those exact words.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Don't forget putting the burden of cuts on the poor. The Tory government isn't going to make the richest 1% pay a penny more in the next 5 years. Don't understand why that makes people want to vote for them but apparently it does.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Trident. Creeping privatisation of the NHS. Ditto education. Denigration of the disabled. A lack of social justice.

    Of course, the manifesto may not have used those exact words.
    Trident is necessary. Privatisation of the NHS is good.
    Please expand on social justice.

    (Original post by Shaughney)
    Don't forget putting the burden of cuts on the poor. The Tory government isn't going to make the richest 1% pay a penny more in the next 5 years. Don't understand why that makes people want to vote for them but apparently it does.
    We need the rich or the economy fails.
    Without the rich, there are no businesses, which means no jobs for the poor.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jared44)
    We need the rich or the economy fails.
    Without the rich, there are no businesses, which means no jobs for the poor.
    Yes, but considering they've had a tax cut for the past 5 years under the tories and won't pay a penny more when new cuts will again affect the poorer levels, it doesn't really seem totally fair. I'm not for over taxing the rich, but for evenly (relatively) taxing everyone.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jared44)
    Trident is necessary. Privatisation of the NHS is good.
    Please expand on social justice.



    We need the rich or the economy fails.
    Without the rich, there are no businesses, which means no jobs for the poor.
    I wouldn't say trident is necessary. If you're ever in the position to use the nuclear option, it's the precise moment you should not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    are they really making tuition fees £11,500? when labour was gonna put it down to £6000?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaughney)
    Yes, but considering they've had a tax cut for the past 5 years under the tories and won't pay a penny more when new cuts will again affect the poorer levels, it doesn't really seem totally fair. I'm not for over taxing the rich, but for evenly (relatively) taxing everyone.
    Someone has to take the burden.
    If Labour hadn't have put us in this mess in the first place, then we wouldn't have to make all these cuts.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alow)
    I wouldn't say trident is necessary. If you're ever in the position to use the nuclear option, it's the precise moment you should not.
    I'm not saying we need to use it.
    But without it, we're left as a target for mad dogs, like Putin and those in the Middle East.
    Tell me this, is it worth cutting trident, to save a lot of money, that can risk the entire country?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jared44)
    Someone has to take the burden.
    If Labour hadn't have put us in this mess in the first place, then we wouldn't have to make all these cuts.
    that's right point fingers like you always do, Cameron. Blame the poor, blame immigrants, blame the disabled, sick, young, mentally ill, and most of all blame Labour for the unemployment crisis, but be damned if you have to point the finger at yourself
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    that's right point fingers like you always do, Cameron. Blame the poor, blame immigrants, blame the disabled, sick, young, mentally ill, and most of all blame Labour for the unemployment crisis, but be damned if you have to point the finger at yourself
    I hate Cameron, he's an ****hole.
    So I don't really understand what you're getting at here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jared44)
    I hate Cameron, he's an ****hole.
    So I don't really understand what you're getting at here.
    my apologies, but everything you say here is pro-Tory.

    I am moderately pro-Tory especially moderated by the LibDems but despise who I call the Unholy Trinity: Cameron, Osborne, IDS.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    my apologies, but everything you say here is pro-Tory.

    I am moderately pro-Tory especially moderated by the LibDems but despise who I call the Unholy Trinity: Cameron, Osborne, IDS.
    I usually am pro-Tory. I would have voted for them, if they didn't have a weak, ****hole who can barely run a bath, never mind a country.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    People dislike Tories because, despite what they say, they don't seem to care much about poorer people/ more disadvantaged people. They claim to be putting £8bil into the NHS but the truth of the matter is that under the Tories there has never been lower morale amongst NHS workers, and A&E is becoming a huge crisis. They haven't really given any sensible solutions for it other than "oh we'll pump more money into it" and "we'll get more staff" - did they forget that it costs £250-500,000 to train one medical student, plus 5+ years? By the time these promised doctors are trained, there will have been a new election, by which time there could be a new government.

    Plus, they denied giving nurses a 1% pay rise, which is appalling. I challenge David Cameron to see the hard work nurses do on a daily basis and then say to their faces that they don't deserve a bit more money. Nurses get paid a pittance, and it's terrible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jared44)
    Trident is necessary. Privatisation of the NHS is good.
    Please expand on social justice.
    Trident isn't necessary. You're thinking of food, water, shelter and accessible healthcare. (Privatisation of the NHS isn't good.)

    The Tories simply aren't very interested in equality and fairness. They're too entrenched in protecting self-interest, both of the individual and the state.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Trident isn't necessary. You're thinking of food, water, shelter and accessible healthcare. (Privatisation of the NHS isn't good.)

    The Tories simply aren't very interested in equality and fairness. They're too entrenched in protecting self-interest, both of the individual and the state.
    Trident is necessary, without it, we're left vulnerable to attack from terrorists with nuclear arms, or even Putin.

    Yes, it is. While privatisation usually means they cut jobs, they usually increase wages but cut jobs where they aren't necessary because they're earning profit.
    Every service that has been run by the government has been a **** up, they're cut spending, and not maintained the service. For example, the old British Rail Service.
    When Cameron first got in power, he privatised a sector of the NHS, which for the first time started creating money, while still retaining the free service due to tax and private share holders.
    That was until the unions screwed it over and broke the system, but Cameron was too weak to sort it out.

    If they have more money, what makes you think the standard of care will drop?

    What exactly do you want by an equal and fair government system?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jared44)
    Someone has to take the burden.
    If Labour hadn't have put us in this mess in the first place, then we wouldn't have to make all these cuts.
    Yes but the burden should be shared fairly, 100% of the population should be affected by 100% of the cuts rather than 50% being affected by 85% of the cuts. It's simple maths and it doesn't add up.

    Plus, and a big plus it wasn't Labour's fault we are in the economic mess, get yo facts straight. I've used this before but it needs repeating as so many people are unaware of it:

    "In 2007 before the crisis UK debt to GDP was 43%, compared to 67% in Germany and 107% in Greece. Economist Mark Blyth has said the only Country guilty of spending their way into economic trouble was Greece.

    The figures are visible here
    http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y= gd_pc_gdp&idim=countryde:fr&hl=en&dl=en

    Secondly, you need to understand that Governments constantly switch between running a budget surplus and a budget deficit. Using the above link, change it to display government surplus/deficit and you can see that in 1996 the Tory govt was running a deficit of 4.3%, by 1998 the Labour govt had reduced that deficit to 0.1% and reached a surplus of 3.5% by 2000. So basically they wiped out the Tory deficit they had inherited....why Ed doesn't mention that is beyond me.

    Ok, so a surplus means that the govt is receiving more money than it spends. Clearly it cannot do that for long because people would start calling for tax cuts and for the government to spend more....
    So spend more is what Labour did, and by 2002 we were running a budget deficit of 2.1%. From 2002 to the crisis, our deficit stayed at between 2-3.5% - compared to 5.7% in Greece.

    The problem was that Labour was running a deficit when the banking crisis hit the economies of the US, UK and EU. This was a crisis that NOBODY anticipated or saw coming. This was a crisis caused by increasingly relaxed regulation of the banks. This relaxed regulation was STARTED in the 80s by Reagan/Thatcher and continued by New Labour. If the Tories were in power instead of Labour then the outcome would probably have been worse considering David Cameron argued for even less regulation of the banks.

    The subprime banking crisis meant that the banks in the US and UK had to be bailed out by the governments. This meant that the govt injected public money into the banks, taking a stake in the banks but also taking a stake of their debt. As the banking system was on its knees, this meant the tax revenue they contributed to UK GDP took a massive hit.
    So we can see that:


    1. The banks aren't giving as much as tax revenue for the UK which means UK GDP falls. Which will then mean our debt to gdp ratio gets worse, even without any extra spending.
    2. The UK government injects the banks with cash and inherits the banks debt. Which means the UK debt to gdp ratio suddenly looks a lot worse.
    3. The banking crisis then spreads to the wider economy, people lose their jobs and spending on welfare naturally increases as more people fall back on the safety net.


    So we can see that as a result of the banking crisis, UK GDP fell, UK spending had to go up and UK debt was also increased as a result of saving the banks. All those things suddenly take the debt to gdp ratio from 43% in 2007 to 67% in 2009 and 78.4% in 2010.

    Basically, Labour was damned if they do, damned if they don't. They did not cause the crash, spending did not cause the crash. UK Debt to GDP ratio and budget deficit was a SYMPTOM of the crash, not the cause.
    What the Tories don't mention is that they would have had to have acted in a similar fashion, and they could easily have relaxed bank regulation even more.

    It really frustrates and angers me that Cameron/Osborne keep referring to the "mess Labour left behind" and claim the UK could have ended up like Greece. We still have a central bank, which means that we can print money to an extent.
    It also annoys me that Labour/Milliband are so ineffective at defending themselves. Ed was right to highlight a global economic crisis but I wish he would pull out the above figures I've quoted and shut people up!"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jared44)
    Trident is necessary, without it, we're left vulnerable to attack from terrorists with nuclear arms, or even Putin.

    Yes, it is. While privatisation usually means they cut jobs, they usually increase wages but cut jobs where they aren't necessary because they're earning profit.
    Every service that has been run by the government has been a **** up, they're cut spending, and not maintained the service. For example, the old British Rail Service.
    When Cameron first got in power, he privatised a sector of the NHS, which for the first time started creating money, while still retaining the free service due to tax and private share holders.
    That was until the unions screwed it over and broke the system, but Cameron was too weak to sort it out.

    If they have more money, what makes you think the standard of care will drop?

    What exactly do you want by an equal and fair government system?
    Well I'm sure that France, USA and India are very glad to be amongst the most terrorism-free countries in the world with their nuclear weapons as a deterrent! And since there are no circumstances I can possibly concieve of which would make me want a nuclear attack to be launched, I'll pass on the Trident thanks. Or I would, as would Scotland as a whole, except the rest of the UK really wants Scotland to keep them, literally.

    And whilst I'm delighted to hear that someone has managed to make a profit off the NHS, I'm not sure that the sole criterion in judging whether the service is up to scratch is "it's still free." Though I would hardly wish to imply that a business would have any interest is cutting back service to the minimum they can get away with.

    And damn those pesky unions concerned with working conditions of those employed by the NHS!

    And essentially I want a government that doesn't mostly pander to the have's at the expense of the needy and the vulnerable and the have-not's.

    Having said all that, I think it's crazy to expect me to pay for the fire service. After all, I'm not on fire.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't done a turncoat but what a lot of comrades haven't understood is the disabled are not effected by the benefit cap and the conservative manifesto has made it clear they will not be effected by the benefit cap in the future.

    At the moment disability benefits are very generous and I mean that.

    ESA can be anything from £100 to £180 a week.
    PIP can be anything from £21 to £136 a week.
    Then there is housing benefit which isn't effected by the caps.
    There is the Warm Home Discount for £140.

    What most disabled people are upset about isn't necessary the amount of money they get but the type of tests they have been put under. And by this I mean the genuine disabled. Those who aren't faking it.

    Disabled people are also mad about their disabled comrades from the Independent Living Fund loosing this benefit and being sent to council homes.

    I think the Tories closed the ILF not to save money but to make sure the most vulnerable will have social care when they need it because the costs of travel for a aging population will get more and more expensive. While the ILF did save money before hand people need to understand the severe disabled have similar needs to the very elderly people we want to protect.

    While a lot of my disabled friends would be angry with what Im about to say I think the Tories made the right choice here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Trident. Creeping privatisation of the NHS. Ditto education. Denigration of the disabled. A lack of social justice.

    Of course, the manifesto may not have used those exact words.
    "Social justice"- a codeword for state socialism.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.