You should be ashamed of yourself if you vote Tory and…

Some.people can't take responsibility for themselves.

Or life screws them over.

Or the Tories do.

Why can't people take responsibility for themselves?
Isn't that what the Torys do? Less of a nanny state and more independence for the individual?

I am tired of people accusing/ attacking this current government. Some of their policies only get through unchallenged because of a luck of opposition. Maybe you (OP) should start a post about attacking the Labour Party for gross misconduct in running this country. Or the LibDems for inadequate policies- so nobody can vote for them. Or UKIP , all the main players F-ed off into the sunset!
This country is at its knees, because Politicians and Citizens let it happen.
Go and vote in the general election... but none of the above, they are all incapable!

Blackmailing voters over the NHS "vote Labour. Only we can save the NHS" is cruel and faintly ridiculous. Act like you could run a piss-up in a brewery and I might think about it.

They are in their minds because they are going to privatise it.
And ohtheroses some (not all to be fair) get better results than the private schools in my area. And if something goes wrong in private healthcare you end up back in the NHS.

But the Tories are going to rescue the NHS that they have spent years running down

I agree to some extent and it has to be remembered that both parties which includes the Tories made bank debt, public debt. Which made ordinary people responsible for the mess whilst bankers continued to make and to keep millions through Tory advantageous tax schemes. (In comparison to ir35 rules which disproportionately penalises one man band self employed).
We are then paying for this through austerity measures. Except austerity has no economic theory (tis an ideology) and has never worked, ever. (Google it if you don't believe me). It shrinks economies and halts socio-economic movement of individuals. Rich get richer, poor get poorer. Squeezed middle have every last drip drained out.
It's a great way of privatising public services. Defund them so they can't provide a decent service. Disassociate yourself from this (see Jeremy Hunt). Ride in on white charger and say privatisation is tge only way. Give the work to your mates who give a healthy donation to your party (and get a job on the board as an ' advisor')

Brown mirrored his diesel gaff with the economy overall.

But it's fine op. We haven't used state schools for years and avoid the NHS where we can.

Now let me think. My DC started at a state school in 1999 - the eldest was transferred to private in 2002. This was because the standards weren't high enough and the left wing head was in the race to the bottom. Blair was pm.

DD couldn't be born at our local hospital in 1998 - because it closed as soon as the tory MP lost in 1997.

Yep, labour did not do great things for education or the NHS between 1997 and 2010.

The thing is, it's all well and good to shit on the Tories for what they have or haven't done with the economy in 7 years, but you have to recognise the context. They came into power shortly after the peak of the Global Financial Crisis.

What did Brown do to mitigate the disaster? Anything of significance?

The thing I find most worrying is that remainers are already being blamed for the failure of brexit!
It will be because we didn't "believe" enough. We are "traitors" 😳 Such emotive and inflammatory language!
I do not look forward to the "new Albion"
And those who orchestrated this omnishambles have the means and will be the first to leave (Nigel farage has already stated his intention to move abroad and benefit from all those pesky EU laws!!)

Ah yes
Austerity.
Because "we are all in it together"?
Don't make me laugh!
How much did George osbournes best man make after the sell off of the post office? £18 million wasn't it?

I agree op.

Badders123

Yes, labour made some bad decisions but the fact is that the national debt is now far larger after 7 years under the tories/Tory coalition.

Labour left office in 2010 borrowing over £150 billion a year, which the Tories have now cut to one third of that rate. Has the total debt gone up during the last 7 years? Sure it has, but the only way to avoid that would have been to slash the £150 billion instantly, leading to much left-wing whining as whole areas of government shut down overnight - which would have created a far greater homelessness and food poverty crisis.

So your criticisms are a bit inconsistent with one another. I'm sure things would have worked out much better with Diane Abbott doing the sums!

How did it come to this?
Seriously...how?
I know in time there will be many learned theses on how this happened but it will too late by then.....fuck.
How??

Badders - I agree, I am crying out for a credible alternative for my vote, having voted Labour or Lib Dem (depending on local circumstances) all my life. Who is out there for us? It sure as hell isn't Labour at the moment.

On young voters: I also suspect that JC and JMcD's links to the IRA are less of a turn-off to voters who don't remember the IRA in their hey-day

Yes, labour made some bad decisions but the fact is that the national debt is now far larger after 7 years under the tories/Tory coalition.
Homelessness is at record levels.
As is child poverty...labour made great strides in tackling this.
Hundreds and thousands are now reliant on food banks.

This is what strong and stable means apparently....

The problem I - and I suspect many other people - have is that as a life long labour voter I now have no party to vote for anymore.

If today's LE results have shown us anything it's that the brexit voting ukippers have gone back to the tories due to the promise of a hard brexit. That's what they want and although I think TM is coming across as an unhinged robot she knows that's how to get their votes.

Labour has been...well. Words fail me really. There is opposition. Corbyn is a joke.

Lib dems? Well, TF seems a decent sort and I like his voting record, but in my county and many others a vote for lib dem is just splitting the non Tory vote.

So.

What's the best I can personally hope for?

A vastly reduced Tory majority and a decent strong oppsition...I don't even care who it is anymore. LD/green/PC collation? Fine. As long as it's stops the tories from destroying the NHS and the education system.

If the tories get in in June with a big majority then - and I say this with utter certainty - we are headed for the American system of only those with money having access to decent healthcare and education.

Our once tolerant and proud land will become a dodgy tax haven for Saudi princes and the gap between rich and and poor will get ever wider.

Anyone who is poor, or relies on benefits who voted leave and or Tory....god help you.

believeitornot is completely right. If we all knew more about economics and what an unmitigated disaster the Tories are in terms of economic policy we might all think differently.
They are good at spin though.

I would like to think most people make their choices according to policies not bullying tactics. Op you are doing nothing to help the Labour cause by name calling, indeed you are more likely to make undecided voters go the other way.

olennas I am not sure about the under 40s, but I think appalling decisions could be levelled at both parties!

In relation to PFI, there was no money in the public purse, it really was a very dire situation as you will probably remember, and there had been decades of legislation and planning leading up to it. The labour model was to do with financing rather than outsourcing of responsibility (which had been the tory concept). For years the LAs had control of drafting the contracts and therein the problem - the devil in the detail.

Voters under 40 don't remember some of the appalling decisions made by Labour. including the use of PFI to fund public services, introducing academization, tuition fees for university, war in Iraq....

YANBU. Anyone who votes Tory is either a selfish twat, or as thick as pigshit.

Gosh, if only I'd heard that erudite and considered argument earlier, I would have changed my opinion.

This is like Brexit bashing all over again, some people clearly haven't learnt that attacking people over their vote is not the way to bring about change. Why not have a decent discussion asking why people are voting Tory, then letting them know what Labour policies are on different topics and suggesting why you think they are better. This character assassination of people who vote differently to you is bullish, smug and crass. It makes it seem as though you have no intelligent means of swaying people to vote differently, which in turn makes people believe there is no reason to vote differently because if there was then surely you'd have put forward that argument.

There are some terrible stereotypes about voters. I'm sure all LibDems don't wear sandals & likewise not all Labour voters are on benefits & chain smoke Amber leaf. Likewise, not all conservatives should be ashamed as you put it.

People who vote tory are not stupid or hypocritical

No more so than anyone who votes for another political party

There are a few less goady threads on mumsnet at the moment asking why people vote tory and debating like grown ups

I think people who repeat the "strong stable economy" mantra perhaps haven't considered how any "strong" and "stable" economy might look outside of Milton Freidman's philosophical and economical outlook (which was embraced under Thatcher and continued under New Labour and under Cameron).

People are really busy trying to keep their heads above water, so generally take what is served to them and add salt and sugar to make it more palatable.

It's true, we do have a "strong and stable" economy, but it's strong and stable in accordance with Freidmanian (!?!) policy. And it's working as Freidman expected it to.

In other words we have a strong and stable Friedmaniam economy.

Unfortunately that kind economy also relies on (and states as part of the philosophy) the decimation of any public ownership, forbids the state making a profit (see council housing), relies on trickle down economics, and leads to an economy and society that is essentially very small Government, which socially promotes isolation over community, and which dismisses commonality in favour of social Darwinism.

All of these things are linked.

"The (Freidman influnced) economy" will be strong under Freindman (because the economy always belongs to those with the money) in the same way we could say that an (Islamic) state will always be strong under Islam, because the owners of the state, will be islamists and promote that ideology. You could of course insert any other religion.

The question is do we want to live under this kind of "strong economy"?

We demonstrably are all becoming worse off, meaning, collectively, as a nation we are actually losing control of "the economy" to a monied class. Even thought the GDP figures are distractingly positive. And I think we all know that! Both collectively, with the sale of publically owned assets, and individialy, with household debt skyrocketing the figures are there.

It will only continue. Freidman not only predicts it, but encourages it.

And then I wonder why can people not envisage a "different" kind of "strong economy" which isn't Friedman influenced if they doubt the ethical outcome of this type of "strong" and "stable" economy? I mean why keep moving if it's not working for you?

There are plenty of other philosophers to choose from. Plenty more people to base a vision on.

Seems bonkers to me (but that's just me).

Maybe the people who vote Conservative agree with the ethical outcome of it, and think social Darwinism is an acceptable societal outcome?

Maybe there has been no alternate view for such a long time people have forgotten?

Maybe the millionaire TV and Media moguls who promote this kind of economic ideology (read: Noam Chomsy's manufacturing consent), actually enjoy the benefits it gives them?

Perhaps it' all three. Perhaps it's none.

To me, at least, It doesn't seem to be very ethical.

But as to why people would vote for unethical "strong and stable" over an alternative ethical "strong and stable" , is really beyond me.

(caveat, I'm not saying that labour are promoting anything different, the have until now, just followed suit albeit with more mild spicing, it's just interesting that no one speaks of REAL alternative's and if they did, I highly suspect they'd be seen as bonkers by the media owners and treated as such)