A Question for Tory Supporters

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

Dimensia care is better
Social care is better
Outcomes for stroke/ cancer/ heart attack/ autoimmune conditions is better.
Routine health screening is better
Leisure activities have increased for many
Travel has increased for many e.g. short haul being very common for hen/stag parties these days
Mental health care improved
Unemployment down

I guess whether your a glass half full, glass half empty person in important . Also whether you have an agenda/ bias.

Ay-men sister. The greatest crisis our country faces is how to provide everyone with services and amenities that didn't exist 40 years ago, for free without anyone having to wait or compromise on quality.

We are so short of crises we had to invent one in the shape of Brexit.

It speaks volumes that two of the three greatest gaffes in UK political history, still much-derided, are Macmillan's "We've never had it so good" (we hadn't) and Vadera's "I see green shoots of recovery" (there were; she correctly called the end of the recession and the bottom of the stockmarket).

(The third would be Callaghan's "I don't think other people would share the view there is mounting chaos", parodied as "Crisis? What crisis?". Unlike Macmillan and Vadera, Callaghan was objectively wrong.)

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

That depends on how you define standard of living.

I’d say


Dimensia care is better
Social care is better
Outcomes for stroke/ cancer/ heart attack/ autoimmune conditions is better.
Routine health screening is better
Leisure activities have increased for many
Travel has increased for many e.g. short haul being very common for hen/stag parties these days
Mental health care improved
Unemployment down

I guess whether your a glass half full, glass half empty person in important . Also whether you have an agenda/ bias.

Nothing you mention relates to productivity, i.e. a usefull wealth producing output. In fact the majority relate to consumption. Unemployment extends beyond those who are registered as such.

Conina

Malthusian wrote: »

As it inevitably does in a time of full employment. The least productive people get jobs last, and get sacked first, so productivity is inversely correlated with employment.

Inevitably eh? Not according to the BoE's Silvana Tenreyro who said back in March (at a time of record numbers in employment remember) that productivity was increasing faster than even official figures suggested.
https://www.ft.com/content/4df91c1a-40b6-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Nothing you mention relates to productivity, i.e. a usefull wealth producing output. In fact the majority relate to consumption. Unemployment extends beyond those who are registered as such.

They relate to productivity because they have to be paid for.

No production = no consumption.

Arklight

Herzlos wrote: »

Generally, a benefits system that doesn't help people makes it harder for them to get into work. It's harder to get and keep a job when you can't afford to look after yourself properly, or get a suit suitable for an interview, or get to the interview in the first place. People in poverty tend to be in poorer health, and are less sharp (because it's hard to stay healthy and alert when you need to choose between heating and eating).
Conversely, giving people the help to get them work is likely going to yield better results, rather than this idea of punishing people for being poor.



There seems to be this notion that people on benefits are swanning around in fancy cars, buying the latest stuff and then going home to watch TV on their 72" TV screen in their giant council house. The reality is far different and there are a lot of people that are in poverty.
Everyone can point to some example of someone on benefits that seems to be doing better but I'm not sure how easy it is to actually tell, or if there's more going on (like fraud).
Personally, I'm baffled as to how many people seemingly on benefits can afford to smoke, but I'm sure they cut corners elsewhere to afford it.

The percentage of benefits that could potentially go to "scroungers" is absolutely tiny.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29898083

It's a titchy drop in an ocean compared to the money that is lost from tax avoidance to the much more successful cheats at the top of the economy. This is without even looking at the fact that we live in a nation where a full 50% of the UK's land is owned by less than 1% of the people who (claim to) live here. A vast hoard of unaccountable wealth that has been completely untouchable since their Noman ancestors stole most of it from the English, a thousand years ago. Until the Tory Party, formed to represent the landed gentry, arrived.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author

There's something tragi-comic that 1000 years on, millions of those self same English actually vote to continue their own disenfranchisement from their own country.

Arklight

Is Johnson mucking up the election he so desperately wanted?

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-06/is-johnson-already-mucking-up-the-election-he-desperately-wanted/

Well this election is only a few hours old and Boris Johnson and his team - who let's not forget - have been gagging for this election for months are doing a spectacular job of mucking it up.

There's been Jacob Rees-Mogg and Andrew Bridgen engaging in a humiliating double act of insensitivity towards the victims of the Grenfell tragedy.

There's been the Tory candidate in the Gower revealed to have said benefit claimants should be put down.

I think we have to thank these Tory members. They're representing the Tory Party as exactly how it is. There's none of the hug a hoodie wooliness of the Cameron years.

It's probably a good tactic. If people will still vote for you when you announce people on benefits should be put down, and that poor people deserve to die in fires, then nothing will ever deter them.

DE_612183

I've now changed my whole voting philosophy.

In my younger years I was labour as I believed that they stood up for the "common man" - then I realised that they weren't common men themselves.

I tried Plaid Cymru as I believed in self determination, however the Welsh Assembly has been a shambles and waste of good money.

Now I find in my later years that with a decent income and a nice house and way of life, the Tories offer more security for what I've built up over the years.

So I'm sorry I'm going to selfish and vote whatever make my quality of life either improve or remain as the status quo.

Also all the others don't seem to agree with Brexit and whatever my thoughts are on that, going against the result is the wrong decision - how can you believe their manifesto's if they won't stick to what the people voted for?

AnotherJoe

I'm going against conservative (even though its probably wasted as i doubt theres a safer tory seat in the UK) but what theyve done the last few hours just sticks in my craw, bad enough before but this is jumping the shark, I couldn't stomach the thought of having voted for them even if my vote makes no difference.

ukcarper

I think like many I have moved toward the right after being fairly left wing in my younger years now I consider myself centre left and find myself with no one to vote for.

Dee_Best

ukcarper wrote: »

I think like many I have moved toward the right after being fairly left wing in my younger years now I consider myself centre left and find myself with no one to vote for.

Whereas I've always held liberal views, but now the LibDems aren't liberal I too find myself with no one to vote for.

British politics has become all about extremes.
Please can we have some sense restored?