The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

why would anyone vote tory?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by miser
I think it's a mixture between being misguided and lacking empathy for others.


Says the person with a green party flag as their avatar! top kek
Original post by SotonianOne
Evidently, so do you.


Funny what people choose to illogically believe when they have predetermined opinions.
Original post by wb25
Because with a Tory government, I am less likely to have to give away a higher proportion of my income to subsidize those unwilling to work as hard as me.


Exactly! I know people who are incredibly lazy, don't work nearly as hard as others and yet expect the same rewards? They absolutely demonize the rich and so vote labour on the principle that they feel entitled to others hard work.
Original post by wb25
So your suggesting unsustainable spending of money you don't have ? Please sir, explain the logic behind your thoughts...


Don't have the time, or the will, to explain why a deficit-economy has been proven superior to a regressive-surplus. There are books on basic economics such as that, go read one.
Get ready for another 5 years of even more cuts.
Original post by 100umsgod
You, my friend, have 0 understanding of Economics.


I'm doing Economics at Oxford next year mate, think I have a decent grasp.
Original post by 789tom789
I'm doing Economics at Oxford next year mate, think I have a decent grasp.

That's funny, I'm doing PPE. Hope you're in my class, look forward to showing you the light.
Original post by 789tom789
So you're suggesting we didn't need to cut back on spending and should have kept a £140 billion budget deficit? Fool.


Cutting spending is not how you reduce the deficit. That's because it removes services that are keeping people afloat and pitches them into crisis: crisis is expensive. Thus, more borrowing is required.

The size of the deficit only matters as a percentage of GDP.

Osborne has borrowed so much to cover the effects of his cuts - which he U-turned on in 2013 because of the stagnation and zero growth they had caused - that the debt has risen by more than it did under 13 years of Labour, and in peefentage terms from 67 to 83 per cent. That is getting close to a dangerous level of debt.
Original post by SotonianOne
Well, that's a huge surprise.



Are you trolling? I chuckled.



Wow! 11 million privileged people! It's almost like we're the most privileged society on this planet.



No.



Because they are more trustworthy on the economy, they want to cut taxes and return to sustainable spending.



People like you should be banned from voting.



Except for everyone earning 25k and up, which is just over 30% of the UK.



Party of welfare claimants.

Damn, SotonianOne handing out the sick pars. You tell 'em.
Original post by 100umsgod
Don't have the time, or the will, to explain why a deficit-economy has been proven superior to a regressive-surplus. There are books on basic economics such as that, go read one.


Is it called "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx, by any chance?

Fiscal expansionism is not superior over fiscal contraction. It has never been and never will be, and there is no real life example of the opposite ever being true, other than in the theories and in the minds of silly Keynesians who think an artificially pumped economy on life support is one that is able to grow.

Original post by 100umsgod
That's funny, I'm doing PPE. Hope you're in my class, look forward to showing you the light.


London Met is it?

Original post by scrotgrot
Cutting spending is not how you reduce the deficit. That's because it removes services that are keeping people afloat


Yes, let's begin a sentence by talking economics and continue it by talking emotions. "Keeping people afloat" is not an economic case.

Original post by scrotgrot
and pitches them into crisis: crisis is expensive.


Is it? Can you give an example?

Original post by scrotgrot
Thus, more borrowing is required.

Osborne has borrowed so much to cover the effects of his cuts. That is getting close to a dangerous level of debt.


I ... I don't even...
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 50
Avatar for wb25
wb25
3
Original post by 100umsgod
Don't have the time, or the will, to explain why a deficit-economy has been proven superior to a regressive-surplus. There are books on basic economics such as that, go read one.


Proven is a strong word, I can give you plenty of evidence that would suggest the opposite to be true. By simply reading a book, it does not entitle a theory to be fact, especially in such an ambigous world as economics.
Original post by scrotgrot
Cutting spending is not how you reduce the deficit. That's because it removes services that are keeping people afloat and pitches them into crisis: crisis is expensive. Thus, more borrowing is required.

The size of the deficit only matters as a percentage of GDP.

Osborne has borrowed so much to cover the effects of his cuts - which he U-turned on in 2013 because of the stagnation and zero growth they had caused - that the debt has risen by more than it did under 13 years of Labour, and in peefentage terms from 67 to 83 per cent. That is getting close to a dangerous level of debt.


So you're saying borrowing should have increased to beyond £140 billion budget deficit? Can you even comprehend what our national debt would be if we did that. Also can it not be considered that the conservatives needed to keep borrowing after the mess labour created.

I find it funny how you said we didn't need to cut spending, we needed to keep borrowing. Then you say the conservatives were wrong to borrow more and increase the national debt? You contradicted yourself majorly.
The tories hate the poor yet Margaret Thatcher let them buy their council houses, and David Cameron is resuming the scheme in this parliament. Reducing taxes for millions of working families and 1,000 jobs created daily. The tories only hate the scrounging poor, but so do working people.
Original post by 789tom789
So you're suggesting we didn't need to cut back on spending and should have kept a £140 billion budget deficit? Fool.


I agree, the conservatives did manage to reduce the deficit. It is not good to have to live with a £140bn deficit in the UK. And Labor would have INCREASED this deficit!
Original post by douglas merritte
Haha, nice one! I can see now that I paraphrased somewhat but the general gist is there...

It made me laugh in PMQs today, with Labour bringing up that old chestnut of inequality. 'We are in the top 10 countries in the world for inequality' or some such guff. I suppose they'd like us to be more like how China used to be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

We need to either resurrect Maggie, have Sajid Javid as the Tory leader or buy Rand Paul off of the 'Muricans in my view.
Original post by SotonianOne
Is it called "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx, by any chance?

Fiscal expansionism is not superior over fiscal contraction. It has never been and never will be, and there is no real life example of the opposite ever being true, other than in the theories and in the minds of silly Keynesians who think an artificially pumped economy on life support is one that is able to grow.

London Met is it?


Hey that was kinda funny. Good joke.
Irrelevant argument anyway, as deficit v surplus is not an ideological antithesis for Labour and the Conservatives.
The issue is that the Tories fabricated a tremendous rhetoric for the past 6-7 years about how Labour wrecked the government, and how it needs a 'firm Tory Hand' to 'set things straight', conveniently neglecting the fact that they never raised their necks above the line during 07 and 08.
It's not a question over whether Labour was responsible or not, it's a matter of the Tories angling it to their advantage when everyone with a brain cell knows that in 2010 the only thing to do was begin austerity measures. That wasn't the Tories being 'economically smart/responsible/shrewd', it was the Tories just doing what anyone else would have done.
Original post by spotify95
I agree, the conservatives did manage to reduce the deficit. It is not good to have to live with a £140bn deficit in the UK. And Labor would have INCREASED this deficit!


But everyone knows that there's no such thing too much deficit ... we can always print more money to pay off our debt right? Like Hungary and Weimar!
Original post by HarryGaga
The tories hate the poor yet Margaret Thatcher let them buy their council houses, and David Cameron is resuming the scheme in this parliament. Reducing taxes for millions of working families and 1,000 jobs created daily. The tories only hate the scrounging poor, but so do working people.

Nobody with an understanding of the world supports the revitalisation, or indeed escalation, of the Buy-To-Rent scheme. Nobody.
Original post by miser
I think it's a mixture between being misguided and lacking empathy for others.

Yep, because causing mass unemployment by raising the minimum wage to £10 is the most empathetic thing to do. In reference to your politics. Personally I think it is 'empathetic' to get the poorest of those who work out of tax and to help people keep more of what they earn. But politics isn't about empathy, it's about fairness and good old fashioned common sense.
Original post by 100umsgod
Nobody with an understanding of the world supports the revitalisation, or indeed escalation, of the Buy-To-Rent scheme. Nobody.


I do support it however there does need to be concessions; a new council house should be on offer for every one sold and only those who have been council tenants for a considerable period of time should be eligible.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you