Tory - The caring conservatives

beorhthelm · Oct 6, 2015

Herr Tubthumper said:
Was it an outsider who put his cock in a pig?

really, are you going to compare witnessed assaults and intimidation to an anecdote? someone did something stupid 30 years ago, therefore harassment of associates today is OK? i know you only post these sorts of comments for the rise, and im obliging, but its evident that one side of the argument thinks they have license to be personally vindictive and use unpleasant language, while claiming the others are the nasty ones.

Hastings gull · Oct 6, 2015

beorhthelm said:
really, are you going to compare witnessed assaults and intimidation to an anecdote? someone did something stupid 30 years ago, therefore harassment of associates today is OK? i know you only post these sorts of comments for the rise, and im obliging, but its evident that one side of the argument thinks they have license to be personally vindictive and use unpleasant language, while claiming the others are the nasty ones.

Yes, that is the irony, isn't it?

Hastings gull · Oct 6, 2015

Uh_huh_him said:
Yes agreed. The point I am raising is that the question will need to be asked whether the Tories can be trusted with the economy in 2020.
The electorate won't be buying "5 more years of Austerity" and" it's still the last Labour governments fault" When they have had 10 years to sort it out.

Yes, this is true, and they would be on dodgy ground, were they to harp on that in 2020. They all do it, of course, and the longer they are in power, the more irritating it is to hear that the previous government was at fault.

soistes · Oct 6, 2015

There is a long and noble tradition in demonstrations in Manchester of spitting -- read down a few paragraphs in this
http://www.theguardian.com/century/1899-1909/Story/0,,126368,00.html

JC Footy Genius · Oct 6, 2015

Uh_huh_him said:
In my view, the reason that the Tories won the election is because a slight majority of the people, who choose to vote, believed they will be looked after to a greater extent by the conservative party.

IMO this is due mainly to the memory of the success of Thatcherism. It's aim was to support and incentivise small to medium enterprise and the aspirational upwardly mobile. It built a generation of Tories who hold the balance of power still in this country. They have switched allegiance before and may do again.
This demographic continue to believe the Tories are looking out for them. I suspect they believe that once the "need" for austerity is over, then they will start to see some benefit again.

The calls for cuts in welfare and the waste within the public sector ring true for this group. The question is who is actually benefitting from these cuts? Currently very few of the core Tory voters are seeing any benefit.

IMO this current crop of Tories do not have any link to the aspirational middle classes, in the same way that Thatcher did. She was a Grocer's daughter and felt a strong connection with the small businessman. The current crop of Tories do not have the same links to the aspirational middle class, it is not who they are looking out for this time around.

Thatcherism did deliver genuine prosperity for this group within a 10 year term of office.
IMHO, If the current government are still calling for radical cuts to "clear" the deficit in 2020, whilst still not delivering any benefit for their core voters, I suspect the election may have a different outcome.

Agree with some of that. Most of the electorate vote for self interest combined with a general sense of how well the country is doing overall.

General Elections (as Ed Miliband found out) are not won by mainly focusing on the core support.

The current crop of Tories links to the aspirational middle class doesn't really matter as long as they have a better understanding of their needs than the opposition.

In the current political reality the Conservatives have very little to worry about as Labour have already lost the next election if not the one after that.

The biggest political challenge the government faces is the EU referendum in 2017.

beorhthelm · Oct 6, 2015

Uh_huh_him said:
The calls for cuts in welfare and the waste within the public sector ring true for this group. The question is who is actually benefitting from these cuts? Currently very few of the core Tory voters are seeing any benefit.

there is an unseen benefit, that of not having tax rises. without the cuts income tax and or NI would have to rise to cover the bills. i do agree that they (Osborne mainly) will have to change his tune before the next election, because another election based on austerity wont wash. people need a positive story. but at the same time, people need to recognise what the cost of pensions and welfare are, and ask how this is going to be addressed in a future with a demographic that means fewer people in the workforce to pay for it. remember, the entire welfare state if paid out of current revenues, there's no savings pot.

and if one looks beyond the backgrounds of David and George, you'll see more of the Tory MPs are linked to the "aspirational middle class". look at the MPs for Lewes and Eastbourne, a nurse and a school teacher.

Uh_huh_him · Oct 6, 2015

JC Footy Genius said:
In the current political reality the Conservatives have very little to worry about as Labour have already lost the next election if not the one after that.

A lot can happen in 5 years. I couldn't see Labour winning with John Smith in charge. Not because of teh Labour policies, but purely with how he would resonate with the electorate.

Labour policy is not established yet however there is a clear mandate for Labour to be a genuine opposition party. I think JC is the ideal candidate to lead that transformation. It's possible he would choose to stand down once this is achieved and let a younger man take on the challenge.
If an Andy Burnham was available to lead at that point, would you still see Labour as unelectable?

BLOCK F · Oct 6, 2015

Uh_huh_him said:
A lot can happen in 5 years. I couldn't see Labour winning with John Smith in charge. Not because of teh Labour policies, but purely with how he would resonate with the electorate.

Labour policy is not established yet however there is a clear mandate for Labour to be a genuine opposition party. I think JC is the ideal candidate to lead that transformation. It's possible he would choose to stand down once this is achieved and let a younger man take on the challenge.
If an Andy Burnham was available to lead at that point, would you still see Labour as unelectable?

Personally ,I don't see Corbyn lasting long enough to 'transform ' the Labour Party; they are extremely divided and will continue to be so under his leadership.He may well resonate with the faithful and some younger idealistic members of the community, but has little appeal for those he has to convert( especially his own MP's!!!!) if the party is to gain power.
No point in living in a left -wing Corbyn inspired Labour Party bubble, if you seriously want power , the country won't have it.
As for an Andy Burnham taking over; sorry, but he has been shown up for what he is, an uninspiring also ran. Time to move on from an 'Andy Burnham' type.

Hastings gull · Oct 6, 2015

Uh_huh_him said:
A lot can happen in 5 years. I couldn't see Labour winning with John Smith in charge. Not because of teh Labour policies, but purely with how he would resonate with the electorate.

Labour policy is not established yet however there is a clear mandate for Labour to be a genuine opposition party. I think JC is the ideal candidate to lead that transformation. It's possible he would choose to stand down once this is achieved and let a younger man take on the challenge.
If an Andy Burnham was available to lead at that point, would you still see Labour as unelectable?

Very hard to say. If you have been writing that Labour lost the election due to Miliband's apparent lurch to the left, then you would say that he would have a hard job to persuade voters, that all is OK, if he is championing policies that come from the very left that the voters rejected this year. He personally might be seen as electable. And of course we do not know what standing the present government will have - by all account the next election might be viewed as their's to lose - most folk on here don't give Labour much chance, but you never know.

Simster · Oct 6, 2015

BLOCK F said:
Personally ,I don't see Corbyn lasting long enough to 'transform ' the Labour Party; they are extremely divided and will continue to be so under his leadership.He may well resonate with the faithful and some younger idealistic members of the community, but has little appeal for those he has to convert( especially his own MP's!!!!) if the party is to gain power.
No point in living in a left -wing Corbyn inspired Labour Party bubble, if you seriously want power , the country won't have it.
As for an Andy Burnham taking over; sorry, but he has been shown up for what he is, an uninspiring also ran. Time to move on from an 'Andy Burnham' type.

I'm not convinced by this at all. I'm centre-left as you know, and I've never been a socialist, but I'd rather give Corbyn a chance than be ruled for 5 more years by out-of-touch gentry who have no understanding of what it's like to struggle, never mind be really poor.

The one thing he's said that might sway me against voting for him is his insistence on an absurdly high rate of income tax. I know some might consider it arbitrary, but I happen to believe that it is morally wrong for the state to take more than half of ones earnings. So I'm happy for stepped income tax levels to go beyond 50% but I'd want a 50% cap on the total the state can take from ones pay packet.

Stato · Oct 6, 2015

Westdene Seagull said:
Sigh ..... it's like going round in circles. So, if no candidate gets 50% of the vote in a GE what do you propose happens ? Should that part of the electorate go unrepresented ?

Well now you've caught me out. You have raised an impossible question.

Oh no, now I've given it one second's thought, you have raised a totally obvious question. Have you ever heard of something called proportional representation? Its something which actually does make a system more democratic. The champions of democracy in union law did everything they could to ensure that it didn't happen during their last period in government.

Hastings gull · Oct 6, 2015

Simster said:
I'm not convinced by this at all. I'm centre-left as you know, and I've never been a socialist, but I'd rather give Corbyn a chance than be ruled for 5 more years by out-of-touch gentry who have no understanding of what it's like to struggle, never mind be really poor.

The one thing he's said that might sway me against voting for him is his insistence on an absurdly high rate of income tax. I know some might consider it arbitrary, but I happen to believe that it is morally wrong for the state to take more than half of ones earnings. So I'm happy for stepped income tax levels to go beyond 50% but I'd want a 50% cap on the total the state can take from ones pay packet.

I certainly see what you say about tax, but your first para is rather too sweeping for comfort. We have just read on here about two local Tory MPs who are not the gentry as you put it. As to whether Corbyn and his fellow luvies have any real appreciation of poverty, other than sounding good, is highly debatable. His background would hardly suggest that he does. It was not so long ago when we saw a chart of MPs who had had no real job, prior to being in The Commons, and there were more Labour than Tories. It really is not as simple as you make out, as the "out of touch" label can be stuck on MPs of all persuasions.

El Presidente · Oct 6, 2015

Westdene Seagull said:
Sigh ..... it's like going round in circles. So, if no candidate gets 50% of the vote in a GE what do you propose happens ? Should that part of the electorate go unrepresented ?

If proportional representation existed they wouldn't be unrepresented to the same extent.

Westdene Seagull · Oct 6, 2015

Stato said:
Well now you've caught me out. You have raised an impossible question.

Oh no, now I've given it one second's thought, you have raised a totally obvious question. Have you ever heard of something called proportional representation? Its something which actually does make a system more democratic. The champions of democracy in union law did everything they could to ensure that it didn't happen during their last period in government.

El Presidente said:
If proportional representation existed they wouldn't be unrepresented to the same extent.

One small catch ..... we don't use PR ( although we should ) so the comparison between strike votes and how we currently elect our representatives is currently utterly false.

Simster · Oct 6, 2015

Hastings gull said:
I certainly see what you say about tax, but your first para is rather too sweeping for comfort. We have just read on here about two local Tory MPs who are not the gentry as you put it. As to whether Corbyn and his fellow luvies have any real appreciation of poverty, other than sounding good, is highly debatable. His background would hardly suggest that he does. It was not so long ago when we saw a chart of MPs who had had no real job, prior to being in The Commons, and there were more Labour than Tories. It really is not as simple as you make out, as the "out of touch" label can be stuck on MPs of all persuasions.

I'm not talking about the Tory party as much as the ex-Bullingdon people RUNNING the country.

BLOCK F · Oct 6, 2015

Simster said:
I'm not convinced by this at all. I'm centre-left as you know, and I've never been a socialist, but I'd rather give Corbyn a chance than be ruled for 5 more years by out-of-touch gentry who have no understanding of what it's like to struggle, never mind be really poor.

The one thing he's said that might sway me against voting for him is his insistence on an absurdly high rate of income tax. I know some might consider it arbitrary, but I happen to believe that it is morally wrong for the state to take more than half of ones earnings. So I'm happy for stepped income tax levels to go beyond 50% but I'd want a 50% cap on the total the state can take from ones pay packet.

Fair enough, but I wonder how many of the Labour hierarchy have an understanding of struggling and what it is like to be really poor.
I still don't think Corbyn will be there long enough to be given a chance, anyway. .............whatever one's views are about him.
I do agree with you re high rates if income tax. It really is a no-no, despite my working days being over and in no personal danger of being thumped! Morally indefensible to take more than you suggest.

Diablo · Oct 6, 2015

Simster said:
I'm not convinced by this at all. I'm centre-left as you know, and I've never been a socialist, but I'd rather give Corbyn a chance than be ruled for 5 more years by out-of-touch gentry who have no understanding of what it's like to struggle, never mind be really poor.

The one thing he's said that might sway me against voting for him is his insistence on an absurdly high rate of income tax. I know some might consider it arbitrary, but I happen to believe that it is morally wrong for the state to take more than half of ones earnings. So I'm happy for stepped income tax levels to go beyond 50% but I'd want a 50% cap on the total the state can take from ones pay packet.

So where would all the money come from for Corbyn to deliver on all his promises. The state takes substantially more than 50% from most wage earners. Income Tax,National insurance,Vat at 20% on nearly everthing,Council Tax,Duty on Petrol Alchohol and Tobacco.

alfredmizen · Oct 6, 2015

glasfryn said:
thin ice if you do not have any proof
all the things you mention are crimes most reported to the police who are firstly meant to uphold the law

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/rotten-borough/

alfredmizen · Oct 6, 2015

Herr Tubthumper said:
Was it an outsider who put his cock in a pig?

Are you talking about Jeremy corbyn and diane abbott ??

Simster · Oct 6, 2015

By the way, [MENTION=28630]Hastings gull[/MENTION] is correct when he talks about there being more career Labour MPs who have barely done a day's work, than Tory ones.

Case in point: My Oxbridge educated cousin is a tiresome right-on Labour activist and his whole life is being geared around being an MP. I hope he never makes it. In fact, my heart will sink if he does. Why? Well he grew up NEVER having taken so much as a part time job (thanks to his mollicoddling parents). Then of course, he came out of Oxford apparently expecting a decent job to fall into his lap. But who in their right mind is going to give a well paid job to someone who has literally *never* worked? So now he is doing some very dull job (which is fine, as we all have to start somewhere) but instead of knuckling down with a career path in mind, he's hell bent on reaching the upper echelons of the Labour party with a hope of being selected as an MP candidate.

Seriously, how is putting up someone like this doing any good to the country? It is no better than having silver-spooned gimp Call Me Dave running the country.

With the Lib Dems having understandably been taken to the cleaners, and the prevalence of the UKIP little Englanders, I am just so depressed by the state of British politics at the moment. I really don't want to vote for any party.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Tory - The caring conservatives

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Bringer of TRUTH

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

"the man's an arse"

Well-known member

Well-known member

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

"the man's an arse"

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

"the man's an arse"

Share this page