Why do most poor people vote conservative? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
(Original post by Bornblue)
Because they massively work towards a handful of people at the top. If you're not one of those then you're pissing on your own leg. If you're poor especially.
Someone on £40k for example who can't afford private healthcare would have benefited from a mansion tax which would have pumped more money into the NHS, for example.
The Tories are going to put more money into the NHS than Labour...
0
The two eds
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 years ago
#42
(Original post by Bornblue)
Actually 'scrongers' from poorer background form UKIPs core support. Hence UKIP did very well in poor areas.
But 'scroungers' is a myth. There a few for sure but it costs this country pittance. Less than a hundreth of what we lose through tax avoidance and evasion yet that seems perfectly okay?

So what happens when a woman has a child? Do we let it starve? You can't wait for children to starve?

What happens when you become unemployed? Would you be okay with being kicked out on to the street? I hope then you appreciate welfare cuts.
It is funny that you say that, you have 0 proof UKIP support consists of mostly the unemployed and scroungers. Lol what a pathetic comment, one I might as well ignore because majority of the country all know the Labour party is the party of the unemployed and benefit claimants. It has been a national fact for decades

Did you not acknowledge my point on a fund you can voluntarily pay Into? If the problem is as small as you say then you should not have a problem with such a policy. However we should not fund a women who has a child knowing she can not support it, plain and simple. What more do you want me to say?

If I become unemployed I very much hope I get kicked on to the streets and the government do not pay for my lifestyle. It's the fair and honourable thing to do.

Haha if you think for one minute Labour will see the end of tax avoidance, you my friend are quite simply a retard. Tax avoidance rose in the Labour years, it is something we can not truly sort out unless we reform Europe, but of course Labour are pro Europe so I doubt that happening. Lool I can not help but just lol at the fact you think a party like labour will sort tax avoidance, just wow
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by Quady)
The Tories are going to put more money into the NHS than Labour...
Well considering Labour aren't in government, putting £0.01p would be more...

I'll believe it when I see it. They haven't said where the 8 billion is going to come from. They've been asked many times and have simply given no answer. It was a bluff and the electorate fell for it.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by The two eds)
It is funny that you say that, you have 0 proof UKIP support consists of mostly the unemployed and scroungers. Lol what a pathetic comment, one I might as well ignore because majority of the country all know the Labour party is the party of the unemployed and benefit claimants. It has been a national fact for decades

Did you not acknowledge my point on a fund you can voluntarily pay Into? If the problem is as small as you say then you should not have a problem with such a policy. However we should not fund a women who has a child knowing she can not support it, plain and simple. What more do you want me to say?

If I become unemployed I very much hope I get kicked on to the streets and the government do not pay for my lifestyle. It's the fair and honourable thing to do.

Haha if you think for one minute Labour will see the end of tax avoidance, you my friend are quite simply a retard. Tax avoidance rose in the Labour years, it is simething we can not truly sort out unless we reform Europe, but of course Labour are pro Europe so I doubt that happening. Lool I can not help but just lol at the fact you think a party like labour will sort tax avoidance, just wow
And you have ZERO proof that any scroungers are Labour supporters.
Go on, give me hard evidence. Oh wait, you can't.#
So if you go unemployed you should be kicked onto the streets?
You're a very weird person.
I think you need a girlfriend.
1
jamestg
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
- They offer the chance to get a job and get on in life, not get more benefits.
- They want young people to either earn or learn - not mope around.
- They give them a chance to own their council house
- If they're on a low paid job, they get to keep all of their money

I wouldn't say most 'poor people' vote for them though.
0
The two eds
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
(Original post by Bornblue)
And you have ZERO proof that any scroungers are Labour supporters.
Go on, give me hard evidence. Oh wait, you can't.#
So if you go unemployed you should be kicked onto the streets?
You're a very weird person.
I think you need a girlfriend.
I am surprised you still fail to acknowledge my point on a fund set up for these "people". I sense you agree with me , hahahahahaha, 1 point to me then.

P.S. Tory majority for the next 5 years of your life. #EDMiliband
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by Bornblue)
Well considering Labour aren't in government, putting £0.01p would be more...

I'll believe it when I see it. They haven't said where the 8 billion is going to come from. They've been asked many times and have simply given no answer. It was a bluff and the electorate fell for it.
Yeah we'll see. Still, even if they only put in half the £8bn promised that'd be more than Labour pledged.

I suspect running a lower surplus, there is a fair buffer there.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
(Original post by The two eds)
I am surprised you still fail to acknowledge my point on a fund set up for these "people". I sense you agree with me , hahahahahaha, 1 point to me then.

P.S. Tory majority for the next 5 years of your life. #EDMiliband
No I don't agree with you. I haven't read that point but no doubt it's some deluded nonsense.

Umm didn't you support UKIP? And now you're gloating about the tories? And then you claim UKIP is an anti-establishment party? Umm okay.
This isn't a football match.
I come from a wealthy background. Both my parents are doctors and we have a very comfortable lifestyle. I'm a law student and have very good links into firms.
If anything the tories will benefit my family. Yet I absolutely cannot support them thinking about what their cuts and policies will do to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
0
jamestg
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
(Original post by Bornblue)
And you have ZERO proof that any scroungers are Labour supporters.
Go on, give me hard evidence. Oh wait, you can't.#
So if you go unemployed you should be kicked onto the streets?
You're a very weird person.
I think you need a girlfriend.
They did want to raise benefits, and when in power they did continually raise the amount people got. The reason why the lost the election was because they focused so heavily on a minority of people and pretty much ignored the majority.

For at least this election, Labour was definitely not trying to get "working people succeeding" - ironically a phrase used by Miliband multiple times. A working person does not succeed when their tax is being raised, when there is more public spending and when business is being attacked.

A working person succeeds when they pay less tax, when they can get a house with a lower deposit needed, when they can access the pension they worked so hard to save and when the company they are working for grows.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
(Original post by Quady)
Yeah we'll see. Still, even if they only put in half the £8bn promised that'd be more than Labour pledged.

I suspect running a lower surplus, there is a fair buffer there.
That's assuming they put in half which again they have not said where the money would come from.
Labour didn't set a cap of £2.5 billion but rather an absolute minimum which had been fully funded and costed.

If Tories do manage to find £8 billion without compromising hugely on welfare then I will genuinely hold my hands up and say fair play to them. However there is about as much chance of that as there was of Farage actually resigning :P!
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by jamestg)
They did want to raise benefits, and when in power they did continually raise the amount people got. The reason why the lost the election was because they focused so heavily on a minority of people and pretty much ignored the majority.

For at least this election, Labour was definitely not trying to get "working people succeeding" - ironically a phrase used by Miliband multiple times. A working person does not succeed when their tax is being raised, when there is more public spending and when business is being attacked.

A working person succeeds when they pay less tax, when they can get a house with a lower deposit needed, when they can access the pension they worked so hard to save and when the company they are working for grows.
I have huge issues with the Labour campaign.
They never offered a clear alternative to austerity. Rather than offer 'asuterity lite' they should have taken a firm stand, opposing all cuts. Look how well the SNP did by doing just that.
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by jamestg)
They did want to raise benefits, and when in power they did continually raise the amount people got. The reason why the lost the election was because they focused so heavily on a minority of people and pretty much ignored the majority.

For at least this election, Labour was definitely not trying to get "working people succeeding" - ironically a phrase used by Miliband multiple times. A working person does not succeed when their tax is being raised, when there is more public spending and when business is being attacked.

A working person succeeds when they pay less tax, when they can get a house with a lower deposit needed, when they can access the pension they worked so hard to save and when the company they are working for grows.
Labour wanted to raise the minimum wage so these low paid people got more money than would be saved from the tax threshold for them.

Raising benefits is not about giving to scroungers but about ensuring people who become unemployed can continue to live.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
(Original post by Bornblue)
If anything the tories will benefit my family.
You're a family of millionaires?
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
(Original post by Quady)
You're a family of millionaires?
Admittedly millionaires' in my previous post was an exaggeration. No not millionaires but very comfortable. Other members of my family are millionaires mind and are also massive tories.
Tory policies would benefit them, yet they actively oppose them to help those at the bottom of society.
Call me a champagne socialist if you want, I take it as a massive compliment.
0
jamestg
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
(Original post by Markt1998)
Labour wanted to raise the minimum wage so these low paid people got more money than would be saved from the tax threshold for them.

Raising benefits is not about giving to scroungers but about ensuring people who become unemployed can continue to live.
Raising benefits is still not the long term solution though is it? The money saved from reducing/not raising it can be invested into bringing more industry and business to the UK - to then get them a job which pays them more.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
(Original post by jamestg)
Raising benefits is still not the long term solution though is it? The money saved from reducing/not raising it can be invested into bringing more industry and business to the UK - to then get them a job which pays them more.
Well it is to those who are too ill to work and need support. It also is to those who lose their jobs and need a temporary safety net to get them back on their feet.
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by jamestg)
Raising benefits is still not the long term solution though is it? The money saved from reducing/not raising it can be invested into bringing more industry and business to the UK - to then get them a job which pays them more.
Firstly how do you know where the industry will locate there are areas with high deprivation which seem to get no investment which instead goes to the South East so there would be no guarantee of jobs being created in the neccesary areas.

Secondly cutting benefits would put the people claiming them below the poverty line yes this may counter benefit scrounging but that could be tackled by efficent investigation which wouldnt punish ordinary people.

Thirdly you talk about this much needed money to invest in industry and create jobs. When it is often industry itself which withholds money from the government via tax avoidance countering that would save a lot more than cutting benefits would.
0
jamestg
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by Bornblue)
Well it is to those who are too ill to work and need support. It also is to those who lose their jobs and need a temporary safety net to get them back on their feet.
I should've made it clear those too ill to work should be excluded from any benefit changes.
0
Jacky Hearts
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
My understanding of the situation, as someone who has no biases because I don't support any party (but I really ****ing hate UKIP) is that the lie that Labour caused the financial crisis is being constantly perpetuated. As is the idea that the Conservatives are somehow fixing the economy through austerity (which doesn't work too well...) using straw man throwaway statements about how they're fixing the deficit and flat out lying about introducing policies which create jobs.

(Original post by Bornblue)
Call me a champagne socialist if you want, I take it as a massive compliment.
I never quite understood why people give champagne socialists stick. I always thought it's quite admirable for someone with social privilege to understand the way they're privileged and want to ensure everyone can live like that.
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by jamestg)
I should've made it clear those too ill to work should be excluded from any benefit changes.
Fair enough.
I just don't believe though that vast amounts of people want to sponge off the state. They don't. Benefits are a safety net, that's all. They're not a way of life.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (351)
46.49%
No (80)
10.6%
I'm not old enough (324)
42.91%

Watched Threads

View All