Genuine question for Tory voters

LadyinCement

Alright love, calm down. Here are a couple more organisations' (including BMJ ) figures then if you didn't like that one. They vary slightly but that is because they are out of date.

We can all throw figures around and debate their legitimacy but my original point is I find it difficult to understand when people can't understand the impact that the tory austerity measures and benefit sanctions have had on people.

We are not the poorest but I have gone to Lidl with £8 in my pocket to feed a family of 3 for a week. We never have holidays and often can't afford to buy essentials, such as clothes or haircuts. But some doctors are having to prescribe food supplement drinks for women suffering from malnutrition just to keep them going. And foodbanks? Are they ok with you?

Please don't lecture me about the school of life - you know nothing about me or my education.

adc.bmj.com/content/101/8/759

www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_work/child_poverty/child_poverty_what_is_poverty/child_poverty_statistics_facts.htm

Relative poverty is very very different from absolute poverty. Based on how they calculate it, there will always be families classed as this.

Regardless of who is in power, the people responsible for those children are the parents. Too many make poor choices, fail to face upto their responsibilities etc. Iits easier to blame someone else than face reality.

Very interesting article, but it flip flops a bit on the austerity/stimulus point. See:

"There is no consensus among economists as to what level of debt harms growth, or whether it is even possible to establish such a rule of thumb.

That does not mean that ballooning public debt is nothing to worry about, however. New research suggests that less-indebted governments are much more likely to resort to stimulus to foster economic growth, presumably because they feel they can afford to do so. It may be a long time coming (Japan’s government debt now totals 245% of GDP), but at some point too much red ink will yield a debt crisis. Worries about a country’s solvency will lead creditors to demand higher interest rates, which will then compound its fiscal woes."

There is an argument that we reached peak debt some time ago.

The points about pension raids and gold were simply to illustrate Brown's general lack of competence. As you say yourself, there was no need to sell gold when he did and it did his own credibility no favors. The pensions raid money was indeed "available for public services" but I am sure that those who saved all their working lives in the expectation of a particular income would have preferred that the goalposts didn't move. Punishing savers just discourages the financially responsible amongst us. I could have added the creation of tax credits to his list of fucking stupid moves, ideologically wanting to create a client state of welfare dependents. The logic of taking some money off people and then giving it back was never seriously questioned. The main beneficiary has been unscrupulous employers paying the NMW (which is effectively being taxpayer subsidized).

And whilst Gordon Brown was a moron, he is a fucking intellectual giant compared to Corbyn's front bench, so the prospect of a Labour win is very frightening indeed.

How are these 4 million children living in poverty? What does 'poverty' mean in this instance.

I struggle to believe this figure.

I'm voting tactically to try and stop an increased tory majority - the tory manifesto actually promises nothing that is measurable and the implication is that the failed austerity policy will continue to hit everyone except the wealthy.

If it's unfair to target the 5% then it's unfair to let them off scot free.

Presumably magicunicorn's economic expertise can describe how successful Osborne's austerity policy was and how it achieved all he promised.

YoungGirlGrowingOld - as I said, we'll never know for sure whether austerity or investment was a better approach for the UK, however we can look to the evidence of other countries which took different approaches (primarily the US) and draw some conclusions from that. The below article is an interesting discussion on the subject (from the Economist which isn't exactly noted for it's pro-Labour views!)

www.economist.com/news/schools-brief/21586802-fourth-our-series-articles-financial-crisis-looks-surge-public

"Time has begun rendering verdicts. Early last year a McKinsey study noted that financial deleveraging in America proceeded more quickly than in Britain and Europe. Also last year the IMF published an analysis of its economic forecasts which found that austerity crimped growth much more than it had expected. The larger the cuts a government planned, the IMF concluded, the farther below its forecast growth fell."

In terms of your other points - the gold sale, raiding pensions. What impact do you think either of these had on the crash and the subsequent deficit? The gold sale as a concept in itself was fairly unobjectionable - gold isn't a very sensible asset for governments to hold - and the criticism which has been thrown at it is that Brown sold it at a low price and could have got more by waiting a few years, however even if he had this would have made a negligible difference to the public finances. The under value sell off of the Royal Mail and other national assets by the Tories could also be subjected to exactly the same criticism - however again, in the grand scheme of things this wouldn't have made much difference to the overall economy.

On the pensions - yes, Brown did abolish dividend tax relief for pensions which obviously takes money out of pensions funds each year (although let's not forget that money is then available for public services), however I don't see how it's accurate to say that this "fucked the economy" - the below gives a fairly balanced summary:

www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/factcheck+did+gordon+destroy+our+pensions/171020.html

Not changed my mind at all. Neither has anyone I know.

It was such a left wing bias set up anyway.

Despite what the lefties say, it was a deliberately left wing area chosen to hold the debate, with a hand picked left wing wing audience overseen by the left wing bias BBC.

I don't blame her staying away at all.

Vote for Corbyn ? Never ever in a million years.

How terrifying is thought of Corbyn and Abbott running the country?

Jeez, no thank you.

Genuinely mystified by the multiple assertions I have seen over recent days that keir starmer is going to be shit hot on Brexit.
He's a criminal lawyer. V capable in that capacity I'm sure but that is no kind of qualification for international trade negotiations

No not at all, I thought good for her.

They looked liked kids arguing in the school playground.

tookawhile your figures are taken from an organisation that has a vested interest in claiming that there is an enormous number of children in poverty. If I remember rightly they also made a claim that "poverty" included not having a foreign holiday every year and not having a new bike every year or "branded" clothes and footwear.

I am not of course denying that there is poverty, just your ridiculous hysterical claims. As others have commented, everything is relative. I assume you did not study statistics at school, or even the school of life.

JC has challenged TM to debate him tonight by asking why can't they be on stage together and what is she scared of? I think the staunch tories will stick by her but the swingers might go for JC if he gives a good show tonight and she evades questions again.

they've set the scene for a very toxic set of negotiations.

I don't know about that. I don't think there is such thing as a friendly Brexit negotiation.

Well you might be right hopefully but I think the economist jury is still out on whether stimulus would have been a more effective approach than austerity. We will simply never know.

What is very clear to me is that Briwn fucked us over economically (selling gold at rock bottom, raiding pensions etc). On balance, the Torres are still a better bet in economic terms.

buggerlumpsannoyed you might think Tories are to blame for 'fucking' brexit, but I think if labour were in power, imagine then having brexit on their hands? It would be a game of pass the hot potato to the Tories to sort out an even bigger fuckery the labour government would've done if they were responsible for dealing with brexit

@BuggerLumpsAnnoyed I'm sorry but the Tories have already fucked Brexit

Pretty sure we, the voting public, fucked Brexit when we not me voted for it.

I don't like a lot about any of the leaders.

This is the vacuum left by the ousting of the metropolitan elite politicians.

Those of both sides who went to school together, partied together, lived together, holiday'd together. One of the papers once did a spider diagram showing how virtually all of the main politicians of the last decade or so were inter-related via their schools, universities, parties, holidays, and marriages/relationships. It was quite shocking to see how "close" they were outside their political lives!

citroenpresse why do you think Keir Starmer will be fantastic in Brexit negotiation?

If our economy sink, we will be in a shit position to negotiate no matter who we sent.

I don't watch the TV broadcasts or debates so I couldn't care less that she doesn't do them.

I'm sorry but the Tories have already fucked Brexit. Their attitude towards the EU since brexit has been appalling and they've set the scene for a very toxic set of negotiations.

bluebeedee the Tory manifesto also wants CCTV in all slaughterhouses which is very progressive, pick and choose pick and choose.
I think the Tory manifesto is a little 'waffley' but it goes into a lot more depth than the labour one does, the labour one might be transparent but it feels premature to me and needs more work.
Quite frankly TM is right for not doing debates, it's just a bunch of politicians squawking at each other or rather just the home secretary for TM's absence and nothing more. The debates don't really help the politicians set out their ideologies or views, rather they just catalyse the opposition's anger.

No - not changed my mind.

Corbyn would be a disaster for the country. So nothing would make me vote anything other than conservative.

4 million children in poverty? That's a lot. The number of under 18s in the UK is 11 million. So, what would that be, over one in three children and indeed teens in poverty.

And if ALL family income rises, there'll still be 4 million in "poverty". That's because it's a proportion based on average family income. You could double average family income, and there'd still be the same proportion "in poverty". Just shows how statistics can be manipulated. Unfortunately, too many people just look at headlines and don't read (or maybe don't understand) how the figures are calculated.