A Question for Tory Supporters

Arklight

ukcarper wrote: »

It's easy to have popular policies, but making practical and affordable is the problem, which Labours aren't.

People need to wake up to the fact if you want better services you have to pay for them and that means everybody.

And which part of Labour's fully costed manifesto are you questioning?

Of course the next one will have to be a bit different. Since the last election the Tories have further ballooned our national debt, devalued sterling, and put the prospects of real productive employment out of the reach of thousands more.

Which will continue to happen the longer they are in power.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

It's easy to have popular policies, but making practical and affordable is the problem, which Labours aren't.

Whilst the Tories only add up because they are usually promising something that's happening anyway.
As mentioned, in blind tests, many Tory voters agree with most Labour policies (the Tories have stolen a few over the years) but are horrified by Corbyn. It's not a policy problem.

People need to wake up to the fact if you want better services you have to pay for them and that means everybody.

Especially the rich with their excessive tax breaks and dodges.
You don't necessarily need to raise tax if you can cut wastage and tax avoidance.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

Whilst the Tories only add up because they are usually promising something that's happening anyway.

Don't knock it, it worked for Gordon Brown for years and the Tories merely polished the strategy.

As mentioned, in blind tests, many Tory voters agree with most Labour policies (the Tories have stolen a few over the years) but are horrified by Corbyn. It's not a policy problem.

Most policies in most manifestos are uncontroversial tinkering. It's the big headline issues that matter. A similar logic is used to say that the "longest suicide note in history" wasn't actually that radical, by concentrating on the big blob of uncontroversial proposals such as expanding the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and ignoring the stuff that mattered, i.e. mass renationalisation.

Did these Labour policies that Tory voters agreed with include the abolition of private schools and the confiscation of 10% of shares from UK businesses for the benefit of the Government?

You don't necessarily need to raise tax if you can cut wastage and tax avoidance.

If it was that easy we would already be doing it. No manifesto has ever promised to increase waste and tax avoidance. Every political party claims every election that they will raise x billion by "cutting wastage and clamping down on tax avoidance" and all of them are lying. Raising money by getting people to pay tax they don't owe is not a realistic proposal.

Malthusian

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Labour aren't as left wing as the 1970s by the way - nowhere near.

lol

They are far more left wing relative to the centre than they were in the 1970s. The political centre shifts over time. In the 1970s a personal allowance of £12,500 and income tax rate of 20% would have been a crazy alt-right libertarian fantasy (even adjusted for inflation). Now it's centrist. In the 1970s mass nationalisation was, while unpopular and on the verge of handing the Tories an unprecedentedly long stretch in power, not totally fruit loop bananas. Now it is. In the 1970s mass nationalisation was an unpopular present, now it's an antediluvian past.

Just look at the average Labour MP - far better educated and better off than their peers of yesteryear.

The average Labour MP is targeted for deselection for being a Blairite traitor, so they're hardly relevant.

ukcarper

Arklight wrote: »

And which part of Labour's fully costed manifesto are you questioning?

Of course the next one will have to be a bit different. Since the last election the Tories have further ballooned our national debt, devalued sterling, and put the prospects of real productive employment out of the reach of thousands more.

Which will continue to happen the longer they are in power.

I question the costing itself as do many people, I'm no supporter of Tories but can't to attribute the increase of national debt with is inevitable if we continue to to run deficit to them.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Whilst the Tories only add up because they are usually promising something that's happening anyway.
As mentioned, in blind tests, many Tory voters agree with most Labour policies (the Tories have stolen a few over the years) but are horrified by Corbyn. It's not a policy problem.



Especially the rich with their excessive tax breaks and dodges.
You don't necessarily need to raise tax if you can cut wastage and tax avoidance.

If you want I Swedish style system you need Swedish style Tax, I'd be happy with that what I'm not happy with is fantasy policies and more left wing dogma.

Moby

The tories and others have said Boris do or die......what will they do though if he is forced to ask for the extension? Will they still trust him even then?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/04/boris-johnson-will-write-to-eu-requesting-article-50-extension-court-told-brexit


Maugham, one of those bringing the Court of Session legal action, has made further remarks to the Press Association.

It’s impossible for him to say, as he’s been telling parliament and indeed the rest of us, that we will leave the EU on October 31, come what may. That is no longer a true statement, if ever, it was a true statement of the law and the prime minister acknowledges it.
It’s a very sad moment that we have a prime minister who is saying two contradictory things - one to parliament and one to the courts.
But in that world, in these sad circumstances, we are concerned to ensure that the prime minister does what he has told the court and does what parliament has required that he do.
We want to see the courts tell him that ‘unless you send the letter, no later than October 19, unless you cease trying to frustrate parliament’s intention, there will be personal consequences for you, you could go to prison’.

Sailtheworld

Malthusian wrote: »

They are far more left wing relative to the centre than they were in the 1970s. The political centre shifts over time. In the 1970s a personal allowance of £12,500 and income tax rate of 20% would have been a crazy alt-right libertarian fantasy (even adjusted for inflation). Now it's centrist. In the 1970s mass nationalisation was, while unpopular and on the verge of handing the Tories an unprecedentedly long stretch in power, not totally fruit loop bananas. Now it is. In the 1970s mass nationalisation was an unpopular present, now it's an antediluvian past.

OK. We agree that they're less left wing than the 70s. They might be more left of centre than the 70s (I'm not sure about that).

If that's true why should we expect that the approach to nationalisation would be the same as the 1970s. Wouldn't you expect a far more right wing affair where the government buy a utility into state control rather than state sanctioned theft?

Think discussions with the City & shareholders rather than a mob storming a powers station wearing hammer and sickle T-shirts. The days of Red Robbo are gone and not returning.

Arklight

Malthusian wrote: »

lol

They are far more left wing relative to the centre than they were in the 1970s. The political centre shifts over time...

Oh dear. Read that back and have a think about it.

SpiderLegs

Sailtheworld wrote: »

OK. We agree that they're less left wing than the 70s. They might be more left of centre than the 70s (I'm not sure about that).

If that's true why should we expect that the approach to nationalisation would be the same as the 1970s. Wouldn't you expect a far more right wing affair where the government buy a utility into state control rather than state sanctioned theft?

Think discussions with the City & shareholders rather than a mob storming a powers station wearing hammer and sickle T-shirts. The days of Red Robbo are gone and not returning.

Excuse me this is a thread about why tories vote tory. Can you stick to that or Sailtheworld will tell you off.