Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
During that time young people have had a particular poor hand dealt them under a Tory PM in my view. Given that, I'm genuinely interested in why you feel another 5 years of Tory rule are in your (or your peer groups) best interests?
I'm 26 and I'll definitely be voting Conservative. I don't happen to buy into a lot of people's dogmatic preconceptions of the Conservatives... They're just incredibly lazy... A strong economy, as a young person will always be my #1 priority. On top of that I have a belief that I should provide for myself rather than the state handing me everything, it's not their responsibility, its their responsibility to provide me with a safety net should everything go wrong for me or a member of my family, as well as safety on the World Stage (that means nuclear bombs thank you, Mr Corbyn). I believe that The Conservatives are much better placed to do all these things than anyone else over the next 5 years, again though, unlike how many in here are about Conservatives, I'm not dogmatic enough to go "I'll never vote Labour" I probably would have voted for them in 1997, but I was 6 at the time... Since I've been 18 however I have only ever voted Conservative, no to the electoral reform referendum, and to Remain.
I think your problem is that a lot of people today who hate The Tories do so because of Thatcher. My personal view of that era is that if you want to keep producing coal, bring back the steam train... Young people didn't see those times, and a lot of older people need to remember that no government since hers has reversed the things she did. I think the other problem is that, the left more than anyone, fail to understand that people can have views that are not the same as theirs, it seems to massively unsettle them in a way that varies from concerning to hilarious, that people don't mindlessly follow some mantra about Tories wanting the poor poorer and the weak dead, all whilst giving the rich a load of kickbacks.
Oh, and if you want to use the NHS and how much the Tories hate it line, just look at Wales.
Doubling in rough sleepers since 2010 and the proliferation of food banks. What's that you say about safety nets?
Lots of MPs employ their family members, his voting record as youve quoted it is obviously appalling as is lots of members of the house of lords and MPs themselves. If you ever watch parliment TV in late afternoon/evening that would tell you, theres often only a handful of MPs in a debate.
Pointing out one MEP when there are loads of other MPs/MEPs on the gravy train is unfair in my view. Its like picking out Sergio Aguero and complaing about the money he is on.
How does an MP on 74k a year own million pound house's in london and the suburbs, unless they extra income either disclosed or undisclosed - they cant.
Lots off people/families onnless than £74k a year own million pound houses in London. Method was pretty simple, but house in Islington, hackney, Greenwich etc in 1970s or 1980s for not very much money. Then live in it.
Huskaris - thanks for posting your thoughts. In the last General Election thread I had said much of you have said and did indeed support Cameron for a second term. I am also only a few years older than you and so I have no hang ups, so to speak, on Thatcherism. I grew up under New Labour and thus formed my political beliefs accordingly.
As such, I strongly insist you look beyond what the Tories present themselves as (able, competent with strong leadership and unity) and what they claim they will do or have Done, and instead what their record is now after 7 years in power and what they are actually going to do if they have another 5 years.
Fundamentally, not only have they waged an ideological war against perceived enemies of the right (the poor, young, disabled, unemployed, homeless, single parents, working class, public and social services, the NHS, immigrants, Labour strongholds) but they have also betrayed core conservative values that make them appeal to a large part of their voter base (middle class, homeowners, self employed, small business owners) through various fucking around with taxes and regulations without actually helping these people keep more of their money in their pocket, as well as moving into the sphere of authoritarianism with the increase in unregulated surveillance on private and innocent citizens and scrapping as many human and civil rights as they can get away with. The only people who will truly benefit from 5 years of a May-led Tory government (who has now moved well away from One Nation Conservatism to Alt-right, far neo-liberal laissez faire governance) are the super rich and large multinationals looking to pay as little tax as possible, from which many in the Tory party and the right-wing press, as shareholders, will benefit greatly as a result.
For the first time in my life I am seriously considering voting Labour. Many people will suffer or even die as a direct consequence of the policies May is looking to bring forward. Corbyn may not be the most able, but I'd rather vote for an incompetent administrator than a competent sociopath.
Huskaris - thanks for posting your thoughts. In the last General Election thread I had said much of you have said and did indeed support Cameron for a second term. I am also only a few years older than you and so I have no hang ups, so to speak, on Thatcherism. I grew up under New Labour and thus formed my political beliefs accordingly.
As such, I strongly insist you look beyond what the Tories present themselves as (able, competent with strong leadership and unity) and what they claim they will do or have Done, and instead what their record is now after 7 years in power and what they are actually going to do if they have another 5 years.
Fundamentally, not only have they waged an ideological war against perceived enemies of the right (the poor, young, disabled, unemployed, homeless, single parents, working class, public and social services, the NHS, immigrants, Labour strongholds) but they have also betrayed core conservative values that make them appeal to a large part of their voter base (middle class, homeowners, self employed, small business owners) through various fucking around with taxes and regulations without actually helping these people keep more of their money in their pocket, as well as moving into the sphere of authoritarianism with the increase in unregulated surveillance on private and innocent citizens and scrapping as many human and civil rights as they can get away with. The only people who will truly benefit from 5 years of a May-led Tory government (who has now moved well away from One Nation Conservatism to Alt-right, far neo-liberal laissez faire governance) are the super rich and large multinationals looking to pay as little tax as possible, from which many in the Tory party and the right-wing press, as shareholders, will benefit greatly as a result.
For the first time in my life I am seriously considering voting Labour. Many people will suffer or even die as a direct consequence of the policies May is looking to bring forward. Corbyn may not be the most able, but I'd rather vote for an incompetent administrator than a competent sociopath.
Huskaris - thanks for posting your thoughts. In the last General Election thread I had said much of you have said and did indeed support Cameron for a second term. I am also only a few years older than you and so I have no hang ups, so to speak, on Thatcherism. I grew up under New Labour and thus formed my political beliefs accordingly.
As such, I strongly insist you look beyond what the Tories present themselves as (able, competent with strong leadership and unity) and what they claim they will do or have Done, and instead what their record is now after 7 years in power and what they are actually going to do if they have another 5 years.
Fundamentally, not only have they waged an ideological war against perceived enemies of the right (the poor, young, disabled, unemployed, homeless, single parents, working class, public and social services, the NHS, immigrants, Labour strongholds) but they have also betrayed core conservative values that make them appeal to a large part of their voter base (middle class, homeowners, self employed, small business owners) through various fucking around with taxes and regulations without actually helping these people keep more of their money in their pocket, as well as moving into the sphere of authoritarianism with the increase in unregulated surveillance on private and innocent citizens and scrapping as many human and civil rights as they can get away with. The only people who will truly benefit from 5 years of a May-led Tory government (who has now moved well away from One Nation Conservatism to Alt-right, far neo-liberal laissez faire governance) are the super rich and large multinationals looking to pay as little tax as possible, from which many in the Tory party and the right-wing press, as shareholders, will benefit greatly as a result.
For the first time in my life I am seriously considering voting Labour. Many people will suffer or even die as a direct consequence of the policies May is looking to bring forward. Corbyn may not be the most able, but I'd rather vote for an incompetent administrator than a competent sociopath.
If somebody had told me during my debates with Fiiish prior to the last election that in just over two years time he would be voting Labour and I won't I would have thought you were a loon!
In all seriousness @Fiiish this time 2 years ago we were butting heads all over the shop on these threads. I have no idea what's changed in the meantime but I think it's to your enormous credit that not only have you taken the opportunity to reflect on your opinions and appear to have significantly moved on many of them but to also be upfront about doing so.
I was a Tory voter all my life up until the last London Mayoral election. But the Conservatives have stopped even pretending to give a shit about anything other than lining their own pockets. They are blatantly attempting to destroy the NHS, waging war on all forms of benefit recipients, aiding and abetting the avoidance of billions in tax by large corporations and wealthy individuals, curtailing our freedoms and invading our privacy. I cannot see how anyone with any form of conscience can vote for that party.
Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
During that time young people have had a particular poor hand dealt them under a Tory PM in my view. Given that, I'm genuinely interested in why you feel another 5 years of Tory rule are in your (or your peer groups) best interests?
I'm 26 and I'll definitely be voting Conservative. I don't happen to buy into a lot of people's dogmatic preconceptions of the Conservatives... They're just incredibly lazy... A strong economy, as a young person will always be my #1 priority. On top of that I have a belief that I should provide for myself rather than the state handing me everything, it's not their responsibility, its their responsibility to provide me with a safety net should everything go wrong for me or a member of my family, as well as safety on the World Stage (that means nuclear bombs thank you, Mr Corbyn). I believe that The Conservatives are much better placed to do all these things than anyone else over the next 5 years, again though, unlike how many in here are about Conservatives, I'm not dogmatic enough to go "I'll never vote Labour" I probably would have voted for them in 1997, but I was 6 at the time... Since I've been 18 however I have only ever voted Conservative, no to the electoral reform referendum, and to Remain.
I think your problem is that a lot of people today who hate The Tories do so because of Thatcher. My personal view of that era is that if you want to keep producing coal, bring back the steam train... Young people didn't see those times, and a lot of older people need to remember that no government since hers has reversed the things she did. I think the other problem is that, the left more than anyone, fail to understand that people can have views that are not the same as theirs, it seems to massively unsettle them in a way that varies from concerning to hilarious, that people don't mindlessly follow some mantra about Tories wanting the poor poorer and the weak dead, all whilst giving the rich a load of kickbacks.
Oh, and if you want to use the NHS and how much the Tories hate it line, just look at Wales.
Like this safety net?
Changes to the widowed parents’ allowance mean a benefit of about £112 a week until the youngest child leaves full-time education, which could be 20 years, has been replaced by £350 a month (£80 a week) for a maximum period of just a year and a half.
I know you probably haven't got kids yet, but I am sure you agree it takes longer than 18 months to recover from the loss of a parent/spouse.
And you do know that in Wales the UK Government set the overall budget for the devolved assembly, which means the Welsh NHS is as (if not more) starved of resources as everywhere else.
The Beverage report dictated the present system of widow and dependant benefits. That was 1942 and his report says: - there was no reason why a childless widow should get a pension for life, and that she should work if she was able to - He wanted to abolish the long-term entitlement of childless widows in return for more generous treatment of widows with children. - He proposed a short-term benefit paid to all widows for 13 weeks to allow them to adjust to their new circumstances, - Plus a pension payable only for as long as they had dependent children. - However, it also insisted that a pension should be paid to a widow who, at her husband's death, or when her youngest child had ceased to be dependent, was at an age when she was unable to take up paid work.
The benefit was given on the presumption that a woman with children could not work and the benefit was the only form of family income. Today many mothers work and on the basis of Beveridge's philosophy, the state should not be providing support if the individual is capable of working.
I, like Frank Field, would not expect the changes to be in order to save money, and would have been careful to avoid that being the case, but would defend the logic of seeking to modernise the benefits system to ensure the resources were best targeted and had maximum benefit. The traditional view on benefits from the left is that everyone is entitled to a hand out from the state regardless of circumstances and regardless of whether they could have, should have, organised their own far superior financial protection in the event of premature death.
A family already surviving on state benefits will continue to survive on state benefits and they are the people who need the help.
But there will be recipients of the benefit that will benefit from employer life assurance, perhaps additional insurance to cover the mortgage. Should the benefit system provide money where it is not needed and where a family, if, like over 60% of the population, they can afford to buy a house, chooses not to buy insurance costing half the price of a mobile phone account. The state can't cater for a breadwinner on £15k a year and one on £50k a year, so what is the object of the state benefit, and what does it do better that an individual can't do for himself.
Beveridge thought 13 weeks was enough to re-adjust to a bereavement, we are now saying 18 months. The existing system is nothing to do with "re-adjusting" to bereavement it is following the Beverage idea of providing income until the surviving spouse is able to work - except it will never be enough, and work opportunities for mothers are far greater than in 1942.
I would hope there is a partial U turn on the proposals, increasing the amount paid over 18 months, but trying to pretend it is meaningful income replacement for mothers who will never be in the job market until their youngest child is 20 is delusional, albeit removing it I agree, is ammunition to prove the Tories are out to kill off the poor and I am a rabid right winger with similar views.
It will have most negative impact on middle class families where the breadwinner did not have adequate life insurance. The state should provide a safety net for those unable to avoid falling, rather those choosing to perform without a safety harness.
Rather than replying with insults, it would be more constructive to counter with reasons why the current system shouldn't be modernised and why encouraging private insurance to meet specific needs is not preferable to relying on inadequate generic welfare benefits, or why we should have both.
Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
During that time young people have had a particular poor hand dealt them under a Tory PM in my view. Given that, I'm genuinely interested in why you feel another 5 years of Tory rule are in your (or your peer groups) best interests?
I'm 26 and I'll definitely be voting Conservative. I don't happen to buy into a lot of people's dogmatic preconceptions of the Conservatives... They're just incredibly lazy... A strong economy, as a young person will always be my #1 priority. On top of that I have a belief that I should provide for myself rather than the state handing me everything, it's not their responsibility, its their responsibility to provide me with a safety net should everything go wrong for me or a member of my family, as well as safety on the World Stage (that means nuclear bombs thank you, Mr Corbyn). I believe that The Conservatives are much better placed to do all these things than anyone else over the next 5 years, again though, unlike how many in here are about Conservatives, I'm not dogmatic enough to go "I'll never vote Labour" I probably would have voted for them in 1997, but I was 6 at the time... Since I've been 18 however I have only ever voted Conservative, no to the electoral reform referendum, and to Remain.
When I was 26 the monthly statistic on the economy that used to generate headlines and be pored over by politicians and ‘commentators’ was the ‘UK Balance of Payments’ - the difference between what the UK receives in income from exports and services and what leaves the country to pay for imports and services from abroad.
It still published – but not commented on in the mainstream media. The UK has had one of the worst Balance of Payments deficit of any developed economy for sometime – as shown in detail in the article linked below:
To describe the UK economy as ‘strong’ is a bit like believing that someone you know who has a a new car and a big house stuffed with the latest consumer goods must be financially well off when it’s all bought on credit.
The balance of payments has always had the ability to confuse (me at least). But you make it sound as if we are not paying our way! We do actually pay for our imports you know! If someone in the UK buys, say, a Mercedes they either pay cash or get it on some form of credit deal. Either way, the dealer gets his money and pays Daimler AG's subsidiary their cut. Daimler doesn't care whether it gets dollars, yen, euros or pounds. It's all hard currency. And they'll have hedged Sterling's value to make sure they don't lose out too much on any currency fluctuations. I suspect that realisation - post globalisation and following the removal of exchange control restrictions (thank you Maggie) - is why the figures are never headline news these days.
Surely, a problem only arises if GBP ceases to have a value and no one will accept it anymore? Then you end up with an economy like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. I seem to remember some on here extolling the virtues of the Venezuelan economy and its left wing handouts subsidised by its industry not so many years ago and it's not looking quite so good now for the poor there now is it?
So, as long as we broadly don't pay ourselves too much without earning it and don't therefore devalue the currency too much there shouldn't be a problem regarding the BoP. Of course, that's exactly the sort of problem Corbyn's tax the rich and give it to the poor concepts would lead to if he ever got into power.
Overall what you’re saying is similar to arguing that if your credit card company continues to let you buy stuff on tick (or even increases your credit limit – as is quite common) then there can’t be anything wrong with your personal finances.
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
not wanting to steer this thread onto electoral reform but I really feel a top up system would be beneficial to make votes count more, there would need to be a minimum threshold, of course, to stop certain loony elements, although UKIP would still get some seats I expect, but seats in the house could be allocated to on a list basis, perhaps to the best second place candidates, etc yes it would be a bit more complicated and imperfect but we could have the best of both worlds
I disagree. The current system works perfectly well. In my opinion the only people that want to change it are probably the Lib Dems and Labour parties who fear a possible wipe out
I think proportional representation has to be looked at again at some point. It was rejected quite recently of course but since then there has been a seismic shift in the political landscape.
I am no UKIP supporter but their representation in parliament compared to the number of. Votes they polled is hardly democratic. With the left of centre vote of labour / Lib Dems / Greens split we are very much in danger of having a one party state. Its unhealthy and undemocratic.
I'm a fan of PR, which was not exactly what the referendum considered (I think that was AV). The Single Transferable Vote, with larger constituencies returning multiple MPs (so that the HoC has the same number, but no party can have a majority with less than 40% of the vote) is easy to understand and ensures that no-one who can be arsed to vote, using the system, will truly be disenfranchised.
In truth, accepting Cameron's maybe AV offer instead of the more desperate Brown's guaranteed PR in 2010, may be seen as Nick Clegg's greatest political miscalculation.
Completely concur with you. Clegg had a golden opportunity to change UK politics completely and he was out manoeuvred by Cameron. I think this was the lib dems greatest error and yet they were crucified over student fees.
Tories have now dropped pledges to not raise taxes (income, VAT, NI), the ones that hit the poor and middle classes. Hammond under no illusions that tax rises are a direct result of their plan to Hard Brexit.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
Are you ok Fiiish? When people undergo radical political conversions it can be a positive sign of intellectual rigour. When they start calling fairly boring right of centre parties Nazi's and accuse them of seeking to kill people it's time to see the GP.
The current Conservative Party leadership has allied itself with the alt-right, and has changed its tone severely to become more authoritarian (widespread surveillance, calling those who attempt to scrutinise their policies the enemy, wanting to scrap human rights, threatening to pull out of unilateral international security arrangements and making aggressive comments towards allies of the UK, refusing to honour its international obligations regarding refugees and migrants). There is nothing Centrist about the current Tory leadership - any Tory MP with a remotely liberal bone has either been ousted from the cabinet or has exiled themselves from the front bench or even the House entirely.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
In all seriousness @Fiiish this time 2 years ago we were butting heads all over the shop on these threads. I have no idea what's changed in the meantime but I think it's to your enormous credit that not only have you taken the opportunity to reflect on your opinions and appear to have significantly moved on many of them but to also be upfront about doing so.
Fair play to you squire!
I'm not sure it is my opinions that have changed but the political landscape. I have always been someone of liberal leaning who thought that the natural synergy between sensible economic policy and the centre/centre-right was the best direction for the country to go in.
However there is no longer a centre-right party in this country. We have the centre-left (Labour), centre (Lib Dems), the hard right (Tories) and the far-right (UKIP). The parties whose policies closely resemble the economic models I completed Masters modules in are now the Lib Dems and Labour. The Tories have basically abandoned any sensible economic model and seem to have adopted some bizarre laissez-faire model that has no credibility in any school of economic thought. I have no regrets about my defence of Cameron and if I had more time I could go into precisely what his successes were and why I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The political landscape is dramatically different than to what it was in 2015 and if people haven't shifted their party allegiances you have to wonder if they have been paying attention at all.
To those who voted Tory in 2015, none of the positive policies that got them elected remain in the current party mindset. Any sensible person who voted Tory 2 years ago should seriously consider what it was back then that got them to vote Tory, because as far as I can see, none of the reasons I voted Tory back then are applicable now.
Well said Prague. Besides what anyone might actually think, the only people who will benefit from Brexit and May's Tories are the rich, greedy and corrupt. And this is coming from someone who, as some of you might fondly remember, argued the case for giving Cameron another 5 years. You haven't got your country or sovereignty back (not that we had ever lost it in the first place, despite what liars and charlatans keep parroting), it's been sold to the highest bidders.
That may or may not ending up being the case but christ it ain't happened yet. A decision this monumental, the impact and success of will not be felt for years, decades and possibly generations.
Huskaris - thanks for posting your thoughts. In the last General Election thread I had said much of you have said and did indeed support Cameron for a second term. I am also only a few years older than you and so I have no hang ups, so to speak, on Thatcherism. I grew up under New Labour and thus formed my political beliefs accordingly.
As such, I strongly insist you look beyond what the Tories present themselves as (able, competent with strong leadership and unity) and what they claim they will do or have Done, and instead what their record is now after 7 years in power and what they are actually going to do if they have another 5 years.
Fundamentally, not only have they waged an ideological war against perceived enemies of the right (the poor, young, disabled, unemployed, homeless, single parents, working class, public and social services, the NHS, immigrants, Labour strongholds) but they have also betrayed core conservative values that make them appeal to a large part of their voter base (middle class, homeowners, self employed, small business owners) through various fucking around with taxes and regulations without actually helping these people keep more of their money in their pocket, as well as moving into the sphere of authoritarianism with the increase in unregulated surveillance on private and innocent citizens and scrapping as many human and civil rights as they can get away with. The only people who will truly benefit from 5 years of a May-led Tory government (who has now moved well away from One Nation Conservatism to Alt-right, far neo-liberal laissez faire governance) are the super rich and large multinationals looking to pay as little tax as possible, from which many in the Tory party and the right-wing press, as shareholders, will benefit greatly as a result.
For the first time in my life I am seriously considering voting Labour. Many people will suffer or even die as a direct consequence of the policies May is looking to bring forward. Corbyn may not be the most able, but I'd rather vote for an incompetent administrator than a competent sociopath.
Welcome to the dark side comrade! Now we just need Putin to start his propaganda machine to combat the Nazi press in an effort to destabilise the country and we might just stand a chance. If us trots can get you, I truely believe anything is possible....
In all seriousness @Fiiish this time 2 years ago we were butting heads all over the shop on these threads. I have no idea what's changed in the meantime but I think it's to your enormous credit that not only have you taken the opportunity to reflect on your opinions and appear to have significantly moved on many of them but to also be upfront about doing so.
Fair play to you squire!
I'm not sure it is my opinions that have changed but the political landscape. I have always been someone of liberal leaning who thought that the natural synergy between sensible economic policy and the centre/centre-right was the best direction for the country to go in.
However there is no longer a centre-right party in this country. We have the centre-left (Labour), centre (Lib Dems), the hard right (Tories) and the far-right (UKIP). The parties whose policies closely resemble the economic models I completed Masters modules in are now the Lib Dems and Labour. The Tories have basically abandoned any sensible economic model and seem to have adopted some bizarre laissez-faire model that has no credibility in any school of economic thought. I have no regrets about my defence of Cameron and if I had more time I could go into precisely what his successes were and why I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The political landscape is dramatically different than to what it was in 2015 and if people haven't shifted their party allegiances you have to wonder if they have been paying attention at all.
To those who voted Tory in 2015, none of the positive policies that got them elected remain in the current party mindset. Any sensible person who voted Tory 2 years ago should seriously consider what it was back then that got them to vote Tory, because as far as I can see, none of the reasons I voted Tory back then are applicable now.
I agree the political landscape has changed so quickly in the last couple of years. It is no longer as straight forward as left/centre/right politics as single issue/leaders have become more important to the vote. The faster it changes the more obsolete the first past the post system becomes.
Rather than replying with insults, it would be more constructive to counter with reasons why the current system shouldn't be modernised and why encouraging private insurance to meet specific needs is not preferable to relying on inadequate generic welfare benefits, or why we should have both.
Because experience with private insurers on less life or death issues such as house contents or car insurance shows that they will use any excuse to weasel out of paying out if they can, and you can spend months trying to sort out a claim. At the most stressful periods of your life, the last thing you need is to be having to deal with them as well, just to make sure you can keep a roof over your head. In addition, if you have to take some time out of the work force due to ill health or unemployment and you can't keep up your premiums, you lose your coverage, which doesn't apply to national insurance.
I'd be more happy with the concept of "modernising the welfare state" if it wasn't used as a euphemism for "cutting whopping big holes in the social safety net" so often.
Assuming you're around 25 years old as the name suggests you have presumably only ever experienced a Tory led administration as an adult.
During that time young people have had a particular poor hand dealt them under a Tory PM in my view. Given that, I'm genuinely interested in why you feel another 5 years of Tory rule are in your (or your peer groups) best interests?
I'm 26 and I'll definitely be voting Conservative. I don't happen to buy into a lot of people's dogmatic preconceptions of the Conservatives... They're just incredibly lazy... A strong economy, as a young person will always be my #1 priority. On top of that I have a belief that I should provide for myself rather than the state handing me everything, it's not their responsibility, its their responsibility to provide me with a safety net should everything go wrong for me or a member of my family, as well as safety on the World Stage (that means nuclear bombs thank you, Mr Corbyn). I believe that The Conservatives are much better placed to do all these things than anyone else over the next 5 years, again though, unlike how many in here are about Conservatives, I'm not dogmatic enough to go "I'll never vote Labour" I probably would have voted for them in 1997, but I was 6 at the time... Since I've been 18 however I have only ever voted Conservative, no to the electoral reform referendum, and to Remain.
I think your problem is that a lot of people today who hate The Tories do so because of Thatcher. My personal view of that era is that if you want to keep producing coal, bring back the steam train... Young people didn't see those times, and a lot of older people need to remember that no government since hers has reversed the things she did. I think the other problem is that, the left more than anyone, fail to understand that people can have views that are not the same as theirs, it seems to massively unsettle them in a way that varies from concerning to hilarious, that people don't mindlessly follow some mantra about Tories wanting the poor poorer and the weak dead, all whilst giving the rich a load of kickbacks.
Oh, and if you want to use the NHS and how much the Tories hate it line, just look at Wales.
Like this safety net?
Changes to the widowed parents’ allowance mean a benefit of about £112 a week until the youngest child leaves full-time education, which could be 20 years, has been replaced by £350 a month (£80 a week) for a maximum period of just a year and a half.
I know you probably haven't got kids yet, but I am sure you agree it takes longer than 18 months to recover from the loss of a parent/spouse.
And you do know that in Wales the UK Government set the overall budget for the devolved assembly, which means the Welsh NHS is as (if not more) starved of resources as everywhere else.
The Beverage report dictated the present system of widow and dependant benefits. That was 1942 and his report says: - there was no reason why a childless widow should get a pension for life, and that she should work if she was able to - He wanted to abolish the long-term entitlement of childless widows in return for more generous treatment of widows with children. - He proposed a short-term benefit paid to all widows for 13 weeks to allow them to adjust to their new circumstances, - Plus a pension payable only for as long as they had dependent children. - However, it also insisted that a pension should be paid to a widow who, at her husband's death, or when her youngest child had ceased to be dependent, was at an age when she was unable to take up paid work.
The benefit was given on the presumption that a woman with children could not work and the benefit was the only form of family income. Today many mothers work and on the basis of Beveridge's philosophy, the state should not be providing support if the individual is capable of working.
I, like Frank Field, would not expect the changes to be in order to save money, and would have been careful to avoid that being the case, but would defend the logic of seeking to modernise the benefits system to ensure the resources were best targeted and had maximum benefit. The traditional view on benefits from the left is that everyone is entitled to a hand out from the state regardless of circumstances and regardless of whether they could have, should have, organised their own far superior financial protection in the event of premature death.
A family already surviving on state benefits will continue to survive on state benefits and they are the people who need the help.
But there will be recipients of the benefit that will benefit from employer life assurance, perhaps additional insurance to cover the mortgage. Should the benefit system provide money where it is not needed and where a family, if, like over 60% of the population, they can afford to buy a house, chooses not to buy insurance costing half the price of a mobile phone account. The state can't cater for a breadwinner on £15k a year and one on £50k a year, so what is the object of the state benefit, and what does it do better that an individual can't do for himself.
Beveridge thought 13 weeks was enough to re-adjust to a bereavement, we are now saying 18 months. The existing system is nothing to do with "re-adjusting" to bereavement it is following the Beverage idea of providing income until the surviving spouse is able to work - except it will never be enough, and work opportunities for mothers are far greater than in 1942.
I would hope there is a partial U turn on the proposals, increasing the amount paid over 18 months, but trying to pretend it is meaningful income replacement for mothers who will never be in the job market until their youngest child is 20 is delusional, albeit removing it I agree, is ammunition to prove the Tories are out to kill off the poor and I am a rabid right winger with similar views.
It will have most negative impact on middle class families where the breadwinner did not have adequate life insurance. The state should provide a safety net for those unable to avoid falling, rather those choosing to perform without a safety harness.
Rather than replying with insults, it would be more constructive to counter with reasons why the current system shouldn't be modernised and why encouraging private insurance to meet specific needs is not preferable to relying on inadequate generic welfare benefits, or why we should have both.
Struggling to see where my insult was, but not quite as much as I struggled to see your point.
Osbourne warning of tax rises and a general squeeze was touted as operation fear, yet Hammond hints of the same. These detritus of Tory politicians are risking making Corbyn's troops look positively noble. What's the latest word on Michael Gove by the way?
Comments
As such, I strongly insist you look beyond what the Tories present themselves as (able, competent with strong leadership and unity) and what they claim they will do or have Done, and instead what their record is now after 7 years in power and what they are actually going to do if they have another 5 years.
Fundamentally, not only have they waged an ideological war against perceived enemies of the right (the poor, young, disabled, unemployed, homeless, single parents, working class, public and social services, the NHS, immigrants, Labour strongholds) but they have also betrayed core conservative values that make them appeal to a large part of their voter base (middle class, homeowners, self employed, small business owners) through various fucking around with taxes and regulations without actually helping these people keep more of their money in their pocket, as well as moving into the sphere of authoritarianism with the increase in unregulated surveillance on private and innocent citizens and scrapping as many human and civil rights as they can get away with. The only people who will truly benefit from 5 years of a May-led Tory government (who has now moved well away from One Nation Conservatism to Alt-right, far neo-liberal laissez faire governance) are the super rich and large multinationals looking to pay as little tax as possible, from which many in the Tory party and the right-wing press, as shareholders, will benefit greatly as a result.
For the first time in my life I am seriously considering voting Labour. Many people will suffer or even die as a direct consequence of the policies May is looking to bring forward. Corbyn may not be the most able, but I'd rather vote for an incompetent administrator than a competent sociopath.
Fair play to you squire!
- there was no reason why a childless widow should get a pension for life, and that she should work if she was able to
- He wanted to abolish the long-term entitlement of childless widows in return for more generous treatment of widows with children.
- He proposed a short-term benefit paid to all widows for 13 weeks to allow them to adjust to their new circumstances,
- Plus a pension payable only for as long as they had dependent children.
- However, it also insisted that a pension should be paid to a widow who, at her husband's death, or when her youngest child had ceased to be dependent, was at an age when she was unable to take up paid work.
The benefit was given on the presumption that a woman with children could not work and the benefit was the only form of family income. Today many mothers work and on the basis of Beveridge's philosophy, the state should not be providing support if the individual is capable of working.
I, like Frank Field, would not expect the changes to be in order to save money, and would have been careful to avoid that being the case, but would defend the logic of seeking to modernise the benefits system to ensure the resources were best targeted and had maximum benefit. The traditional view on benefits from the left is that everyone is entitled to a hand out from the state regardless of circumstances and regardless of whether they could have, should have, organised their own far superior financial protection in the event of premature death.
A family already surviving on state benefits will continue to survive on state benefits and they are the people who need the help.
But there will be recipients of the benefit that will benefit from employer life assurance, perhaps additional insurance to cover the mortgage. Should the benefit system provide money where it is not needed and where a family, if, like over 60% of the population, they can afford to buy a house, chooses not to buy insurance costing half the price of a mobile phone account. The state can't cater for a breadwinner on £15k a year and one on £50k a year, so what is the object of the state benefit, and what does it do better that an individual can't do for himself.
Beveridge thought 13 weeks was enough to re-adjust to a bereavement, we are now saying 18 months. The existing system is nothing to do with "re-adjusting" to bereavement it is following the Beverage idea of providing income until the surviving spouse is able to work - except it will never be enough, and work opportunities for mothers are far greater than in 1942.
I would hope there is a partial U turn on the proposals, increasing the amount paid over 18 months, but trying to pretend it is meaningful income replacement for mothers who will never be in the job market until their youngest child is 20 is delusional, albeit removing it I agree, is ammunition to prove the Tories are out to kill off the poor and I am a rabid right winger with similar views.
It will have most negative impact on middle class families where the breadwinner did not have adequate life insurance. The state should provide a safety net for those unable to avoid falling, rather those choosing to perform without a safety harness.
Rather than replying with insults, it would be more constructive to counter with reasons why the current system shouldn't be modernised and why encouraging private insurance to meet specific needs is not preferable to relying on inadequate generic welfare benefits, or why we should have both.
Thus goes the last decent reason to vote Tory, and the last line they needed to cross to go from a centre-right party to full-on right nationalist/authoritarian party.
And no, I haven't accused them of wanting to kill people, try improving your reading skills. What is the case is that if the Tories continue to undermine support for the most vulnerable in society (the homeless, single parents, children in poverty, those in care, benefits recipients) as well as continue to let A&E wards get worse and worse, we will be seeing huge increases in easily preventable deaths because the Tories are shifting resources away from vital public services to wherever they hold shares. If you're happy to let people die because you want the rich to get richer (and by the sounds of your tone you're more than happy to let this happen) then that's on you. I'd rather take a stand.
However there is no longer a centre-right party in this country. We have the centre-left (Labour), centre (Lib Dems), the hard right (Tories) and the far-right (UKIP). The parties whose policies closely resemble the economic models I completed Masters modules in are now the Lib Dems and Labour. The Tories have basically abandoned any sensible economic model and seem to have adopted some bizarre laissez-faire model that has no credibility in any school of economic thought. I have no regrets about my defence of Cameron and if I had more time I could go into precisely what his successes were and why I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The political landscape is dramatically different than to what it was in 2015 and if people haven't shifted their party allegiances you have to wonder if they have been paying attention at all.
To those who voted Tory in 2015, none of the positive policies that got them elected remain in the current party mindset. Any sensible person who voted Tory 2 years ago should seriously consider what it was back then that got them to vote Tory, because as far as I can see, none of the reasons I voted Tory back then are applicable now.
I'd be more happy with the concept of "modernising the welfare state" if it wasn't used as a euphemism for "cutting whopping big holes in the social safety net" so often.
These detritus of Tory politicians are risking making Corbyn's troops look positively noble.
What's the latest word on Michael Gove by the way?