Why the Tories are better for Britain Watch

Gundabad(good)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by Xtina92)
Do you really believe the Tory propaganda?
Those 'certain people on benefits' include me so...I'm all for it. I don't really like cuts to welfare and to the nhs. :dontknow:
Are you saying that you're an adult who hasn't worked a single day in an honest job in their entire life, has multiple kids who are the typical council estate hoodlums and you secretly support racist groups like the EDL or are even part of it? Because those are the "certain people" I'm taking about. People who need benefits for specific reasons should be getting support from the state. I'm not talking about everyone on benefits.
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by QE2)
They don't care about the economy per se. It could crash entirely is it meant lining their pockets. (See Brexit)


Only if they are Tory party donors.


The fact that the want to get it done regardless, even if that means No Deal, shows that they are a danger to the economy and the nation as a whole.


Tokenism. He won't be around for long.
Why bring in austerity then? The fact that a government is being responsible for budgets for once shows how they have the integrity to make hard choices for the nation. If Labour stayed in power after 2010 spending would have continued the way it was during the 2000s and we all know the economy was booming then. No government wants to do spending cuts because that would be generally unpopular but the Tories still did it. It's Labour that don't care about the economy per se. They would just inflate spending everywhere just to get more votes and leave the problem for a future generation.
1
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by Xtina92)
so he can now do what he wants. what great news for everyone!
The Tories as a whole can finally achieve their goals and that's great news for everyone.
0
reply
Xtina92
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
Are you saying that you're an adult who hasn't worked a single day in an honest job in their entire life, has multiple kids who are the typical council estate hoodlums and you secretly support racist groups like the EDL or are even part of it? Because those are the "certain people" I'm taking about. People who need benefits for specific reasons should be getting support from the state. I'm not talking about everyone on benefits.
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
The Tories as a whole can finally achieve their goals and that's great news for everyone.
Talk about making assumptions and stereotyping :lol:
I think Boris is hiding behind a tsr account.
The only people the Tories serve is themselves.
Last edited by Xtina92; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#45
Haven't you watched Channel 5?

But in all seriousness these stereotypes actually exist. Visit any council estate, especially the big ones, and you can feel the crime and unemployment that infests the area. You just don't accept them because you don't want to be the person that judges others based on their poor choices in life.

Signed, Boris Johnson.
0
reply
Xtina92
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
Haven't you watched Channel 5?

But in all seriousness these stereotypes actually exist. Visit any council estate, especially the big ones, and you can feel the crime and unemployment that infests the area. You just don't accept them because you don't want to be the person that judges others based on their poor choices in life.

Signed, Boris Johnson.
I don't get my information from reality tv. These people may exist but they are a minority of the people who claim and not the real problem. And you're right that I don't pass judgement on other people regardless of how they live.
Signed, a 'bleedin liberal leftie'
Last edited by Xtina92; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
Why bring in austerity then? The fact that a government is being responsible for budgets for once shows how they have the integrity to make hard choices for the nation. If Labour stayed in power after 2010 spending would have continued the way it was during the 2000s and we all know the economy was booming then. No government wants to do spending cuts because that would be generally unpopular but the Tories still did it. It's Labour that don't care about the economy per se. They would just inflate spending everywhere just to get more votes and leave the problem for a future generation.
The money to bail out the banks had to come from somewhere. Those million pound bonuses don't grow on trees!
Also, the Tory gov't of 9 years ago was a somewhat different animal.
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#48
Brexit changed the focus of the Tory party I admit. But Brexit unfortunately has to be resolved in some way, whatever that will be. The only thing that is certain is that once Brexit is done, the Tories can go back to the somewhat different animal it was during 2010-2019 and get onto fixing issues that haven't be dealt with in the last 3 years because of Brexit.
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Xtina92)
I don't get my information from reality tv. These people may exist but they are a minority of the people who claim and not the real problem. And you're right that I don't pass judgement on other people regardless of how they live.
Signed, a 'bleedin liberal leftie'
I go to a failing school in the north of Manchester. I see some of the kids that go to the school. I tell you one thing, most of those kids have no real aspirations, will likely fail most of their GCSEs and end up like their unemployed parents taking benefits because they are unemployable. Reality TV actually reveals the issue to its core.
1
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by QE2)
The money to bail out the banks had to come from somewhere. Those million pound bonuses don't grow on trees!
Also, the Tory gov't of 9 years ago was a somewhat different animal.
The banks were bailed out by a Labour government. Not that they shouldn't have been bailed out anyway because if they fell under a lot of people would have lost their savings.
Last edited by Gundabad(good); 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Xtina92
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
I go to a failing school in the north of Manchester. I see some of the kids that go to the school. I tell you one thing, most of those kids have no real aspirations, will likely fail most of their GCSEs and end up like their unemployed parents taking benefits because they are unemployable. Reality TV actually reveals the issue to its core.
The government should probably stop cutting on education then. They've had a decade to do something about it but all they do is cut cut cut, all in the name of austerity.
1
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Xtina92)
The government should probably stop cutting on education then. They've had a decade to do something about it but all they do is cut cut cut, all in the name of austerity.
Whereas, Labour would just devote all the extra money to useless programs which have the purpose of only helping the "disadvantaged" (more like the lazy and unmotivated). The problem I have with Labour is that if they get into power, I worry the focus with be on a certain parts of UK society (some people on benefits / criminals) that are already getting help, while other parts of society are ignored and forced to give more in the way of taxes (the hard-working rich / middle class / maybe even the working class).
0
reply
Xtina92
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
Whereas, Labour would just devote all the extra money to useless programs which have the purpose of only helping the "disadvantaged" (more like the lazy and unmotivated). The problem I have with Labour is that if they get into power, I worry the focus with be on a certain parts of UK society (some people on benefits / criminals) that are already getting help, while other parts of society are ignored and forced to give more in the way of taxes (the hard-working rich / middle class / maybe even the working class).
Oh yes labour are such nasty people, wanting to help those in need by taxing the rich. Disadvantaged people are just that: disadvantaged compared to the middle class and some of the able working classes. Not lazy, not unmotivated, not scroungers or whatever else you want to call them.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Last edited by Xtina92; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Xtina92)
Do you really believe the Tory propaganda?
Those 'certain people on benefits' include me so...I'm all for it. I don't really like cuts to welfare and to the nhs. :dontknow:
There haven't been any cuts to the NHS. NHS funding has grown above real terms since the Conservatives came in back in 2010 and will almost certainly continue to do so. The NHS, however, is pressured by an ageing population and increased expectations on the service. These are real challenges that health services around the world have to find solutions for - it's not some sort of Tory conspiracy.

In terms of social security, fine - you're a net beneficiary. But surely you recognise that you are part of a wider society and that simply increasing benefits will negatively affect that - and probably, in the end, ultimately you as well? The main savings from social security were from (1) the now-departed benefit freeze which was justified in terms of the deficit and didn't apply in many cases (eg, for recipients of disability benefits); (2) the reductions in tax credits, a system that was far more expensive and created a far broader entitlement than Labour expected when they reformed it and (3) moving people off of out-of-work benefits (ie, JSA and ESA) and into work - combined with a higher minimum wage level that reduced the level of in-work benefit entitlement, which is largely a good thing.

The first was a temporary measure to address a significant national problem. The others addressed significant problems that existed beforehand. Tax credits was probably the most difficult choice, because it does hit a lot of working people at the lower end of the income spectrum - but these are also ones who are benefiting from things like the National Living Wage and the raising of the tax-free personal allowance.

Any party in government would've had to wrestle with these issues.
Last edited by L i b; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Xtina92
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by L i b)
There haven't been any cuts to the NHS. NHS funding has grown above real terms since the Conservatives came in back in 2010 and will almost certainly continue to do so. The NHS, however, is pressured by an ageing population and increased expectations on the service. These are real challenges that health services around the world have to find solutions for - it's not some sort of Tory conspiracy.

In terms of social security, fine - you're a net beneficiary. But surely you recognise that you are part of a wider society and that simply increasing benefits will negatively affect that - and probably, in the end, ultimately you as well? The main savings from social security were from (1) the now-departed benefit freeze which was justified in terms of the deficit and didn't apply in many cases (eg, for recipients of disability benefits); (2) the reductions in tax credits, a system that was far more expensive and created a far broader entitlement than Labour expected when they reformed it and (3) moving people off of out-of-work benefits (ie, JSA and ESA) and into work - combined with a higher minimum wage level that reduced the level of in-work benefit entitlement, which is largely a good thing.

The first was a temporary measure to address a significant national problem. The others addressed significant problems that existed beforehand. Tax credits was probably the most difficult choice, because it does hit a lot of working people at the lower end of the income spectrum - but these are also ones who are benefiting from things like the National Living Wage and the raising of the tax-free personal allowance.
In real terms the conservatives have spent less on the nhs than labour throughout decades. They were never for it, it was labours idea and they want to privatise it.
I've witnessed first hand the deterioration to the nhs and the rationing of care and you'll never get me to agree to it, I'm sorry. They've even shut down vital A&Es and now some areas have been left with none. Even more hospitals are at risk. They cut the nursing bursary and now they're being praised for bringing it back.
And universal credit sucks, it's a system set up to make people suffer.
Labour all the way.
Last edited by Xtina92; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 weeks ago
#56
Labour ended up as a weird Stalinist cult which would have ruined our country if they had sneaked into power. fortunately the Great British Public smelled a rat and took drastic steps to save our economy and way of life. i am very grateful for those humble people who lent Boris their votes after generations of voting for Labour.
1
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Xtina92)
In real terms the conservatives have spent less on the nhs than labour throughout decades. They were never for it, it was labours idea
The first point on funding is simply false. Health spending has, as I said, increased in real terms in every year since 2010 and has been at a record high in every one of those years.

Your second point is arguable at best. Labour introduced it after the '45 election, but it built on a lot of ideas and ultimately the proposal was first put forward by a Conservative health minister in the wartime National Government under Churchill.

I've witnessed first hand the deterioration to the nhs and the rationing of care and you'll never get me to agree to it, I'm sorry. They've even shut down vital A&Es and now some areas have been left with none. Even more hospitals are at risk. They cut the nursing bursary and now they're being praised for bringing it back.
Care has always been rationed in the NHS - it has a finite budget. The challenges it faces are well-known, but it is a far better system than it was decades ago - even with the increased expectations placed upon it.

In terms of A&Es, this has been a popular complaint under many governments. People like having one nearby, sure, but the vast weight of evidence is that better equipped regional trauma centres have better outcomes than more dispersed, less comprehensive coverage. In my view, that's a fairly well established fact in health policy circles, yet every major political party has pretended otherwise at some point, because there's nothing better for a Parliamentary candidate than a "save our A&E" campaign.

And universal credit sucks, it's a system set up to make people suffer.
Labour all the way.
I'm not really sure what your objection is to Universal Credit. If it's simply the levels, then that's really back to the tax credits issue. There are parts, like the wait period, that you'll find plenty of Conservatives who aren't particularly fond of.

Ultimately the core of UC was amalgamating benefits to simplify them and create a clearer taper as earnings increased - removing perverse disincentives to work. I've never heard a coherent argument made against that, other than that it is tricky to set up. Indeed, plenty of parties have spoken in favour of that principle.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Xtina92)
To have such a large majority gives way for the most extreme right wing government we've had in decades, which frankly scares me.
Lol be afraid.


Wanna hug?

0
reply
DangledTeaspoon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 weeks ago
#59
I saw on BBC News that it was something like 70% of 18-24 year olds voted labour, compared to 70% of 60 year olds voting conservative. I like my generation
0
reply
MaleMan
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
Why bring in austerity then? The fact that a government is being responsible for budgets for once shows how they have the integrity to make hard choices for the nation. If Labour stayed in power after 2010 spending would have continued the way it was during the 2000s and we all know the economy was booming then. No government wants to do spending cuts because that would be generally unpopular but the Tories still did it. It's Labour that don't care about the economy per se. They would just inflate spending everywhere just to get more votes and leave the problem for a future generation.
You make it sound like the Tories are enforcing austerity for noble purposes and not just lining their own pockets. After nearly a decade of cuts, don't you think we ought to have made progress right now? Where's all the money going? The fact that the Tories continue with unpopular cuts is because they exploit the right-wing media to scapegoat the wrong people, namely the Labour of yesteryear. You're right about the short-lived Labour's spending plans though.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (4)
44.44%
My career doesn't need one (1)
11.11%
I'm sick of studying (2)
22.22%
I can't find a course I want to do (0)
0%
I don't know enough about them (0)
0%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (2)
22.22%

Watched Threads

View All