A Question for Tory Supporters

phillw

parking_question_chap wrote: »

What will it take? It will take the formation of a significantly more competent alternative than Comrade Corbyn and Abacus Abbott

You say that, but they are more competent than the current PM & cabinet.

Corbyn knows how to grow things and even Abbott has a tighter grasp of numbers than Boris.

If people are against men who get women pregnant outside of a committed relationship, then why would you want someone as leader who does exactly that?? Doesn't seem to be a good role model for a start.

parking_question_chap

Cakeguts wrote: »

There is much too much entitlement in the UK at the moment. Too many people wanting to have everything they want with no regard to a) how they will pay for it b) whether they need it in the first place.

I agree with all of your post. But this part especially, I would go even further to say many peoples default opinion is that somebody else should pay for their existance. How have we got into this situation? Over inflated benefits. Thats how. And its damn hard to stop without harming the kids that these degenerates seem to be popping out 24/7.

Yes the conservatives are hard line. But unfortunately the time has come where we just cannot continue as we are. We need to make life better for those that contribute to society and less comfortable for those who do not.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Benefits to be the essentials not the luxuries. If you are on benefits long term you should get pre paid food cards rather than letting people use their benefits for fags, alcohol and Sky TV. You would not phone up Sky TV and ask for free connection, so why should the Government be paying for it?

If they want money above and beyond they can do some menial tasks such as litter picking, graffiti cleaning, cutting back overgrown vegetation on paths etc etc.

Arklight

There isn't zero tolerance of theft. There's zero tolerance of malfeasances committed by the poor and virtually no interest in the ill-doings committed by their betters. Prisons aren't full of rich people. No matter how much tax they dodge and cheat their way out of. No matter how many workers' pension funds get ransacked or how many assets get stripped. Not to mention the fact that the rich are rather good at just paying governments to ensure laws are arranged so that they can do whatever they want.

The bedrock of Conservatism is hierarchy. At its best this can be seen as benign patronage, but Conservatives (especially now) react with uninterrogated fury at anyone who challenges the top, and complete disgust at anyone who exists at the bottom.

Fred the Shred gets a £17m pension and a life of unimaginable luxury while those who are the direct recipients of the poverty he has caused are villified by the Daily Mail for being poor. But some right winger has found a Youtube video of a fat woman at a food bank so, let them all starve.

As far as I can see from this thread, Tory voters are not particularly nice, nor are they 1/3 as clever as they think they are.

Doozergirl

Arklight wrote: »

As far as I can see from this thread, Tory voters are not particularly nice, nor are they 1/3 as clever as they think they are.

I'm inclined to agree. I have a genuine interest in politics but have stayed away from this board since its inception because it was initially full of loons. I then believed it was full of clever people. I spent an hour and a half this morning reading this thread, part of it believing it was more informed than facebook.

Fail. This thread is an echo chamber of people ranting about 0.25% of the tax they pay. That's not 0.25% of their income, it's 0.25% of the tax. And this appears to be the common thread running through.

A fear of poor people taking their money; the same fear that the insecure rich people have. Except most us fall into their idea of poor.

I'm not ashamed to understand that I can identify with any party on some level, except the Brexit Party because they have no manifesto.

Not ashamed at all. Proud, because I can appreciate and empathise with others' point of view. Except for constant whining.

phillw

parking_question_chap wrote: »

Over inflated benefits.

I can't work out whether you are prejudiced or misinformed.

parking_question_chap wrote: »

I have said it before and I will say it again. Benefits to be the essentials not the luxuries. If you are on benefits long term you should get pre paid food cards rather than letting people use their benefits for fags, alcohol and Sky TV. You would not phone up Sky TV and ask for free connection, so why should the Government be paying for it?

There are several glaring issues with your opinion, but I'll focus on sky tv.

That seems to be something that you lot are really obsessed about, if you google for sky tv on benefits you come across two types of discussion threads. One where people are going on about how outrageous it is that people on benefits has sky tv.

The other type of thread is from people who are now on benefits and can't afford to pay, but because they are still in contract they also can't afford to leave.

They probably don't need shoes either. I suppose they could sell them.

Arklight

phillw wrote: »

I can't work out whether you are prejudiced or misinformed.



There are several glaring issues with your opinion, but I'll focus on sky tv.

That seems to be something that you lot are really obsessed about, if you google for sky tv on benefits you come across two types of discussion threads. One where people are going on about how outrageous it is that people on benefits has sky tv.

The other type of thread is from people who are now on benefits and can't afford to pay, but because they are still in contract they also can't afford to leave.

They probably don't need shoes either. I suppose they could sell them.

People on benefits with Sky TV was the poor hating propaganda from the 90s. Most Tory voters are well into their 60s and beyond so that's probably what they have carried with them.

A satellite dish would be far down most unemployed younger people's spending priorities now. But if you closed your mind on every other subject 30 years ago why change?

phillw

Arklight wrote: »

People on benefits with Sky TV was the poor hating propaganda from the 90s.

Back then they were complaining about satellite dishes (and cars) on council estates.
The number of people on long term benefits that have sky must be pretty low. Like the very rare 12 kid family situation, which quite frankly they've been punished enough.

Everyone else just won't have the cash flow. Unless they have haggled some ridiculously low payment.

Maybe they should have money docked every time they smile?

Cakeguts

phillw wrote: »

You say that, but they are more competent than the current PM & cabinet.

Corbyn knows how to grow things and even Abbott has a tighter grasp of numbers than Boris.

If people are against men who get women pregnant outside of a committed relationship, then why would you want someone as leader who does exactly that?? Doesn't seem to be a good role model for a start.

Abbot might be good at something but completely useless at controlling her type 2 diabetes. She blamed that day when she got everything wrong on the diabetes being a problem and then got caught drinking a sugary high alcohol drink on the tube when it is illegal to drink alcohol on the tube. How does she think she is going to control type 2 diabetes when she isn't following the diet properly?

Cakeguts

I can't vote for the red team because that would mean getting our completely useless MP back. We have a labour MP who doesn't do anything apart from draw his salary for being an MP. He doesn't even live in the constituency. Most people have MPs who go to school fetes or open garden parties or visit the local hospice in fact do things for their voters. Ours doesn't do any of that. You can forget what he looks like.

LHW99

If people are against men who get women pregnant outside of a committed relationship, then why would you want someone as leader who does exactly that?? Doesn't seem to be a good role model for a start.

Not a particularly good model, but not actually illegal and hardly uncommon in or outside Parliament. Unlike drug use, which seems to be rife and is illegal, but does not appear to cause any media issues for anyone in any party - and IMO is an even poorer model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_politicians_who_have_acknowledged_cannabis_use
https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/26/traces-of-cocaine-found-throughout-houses-of-parliament-10075256/