Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask those who voted for the conservatives ....

507 replies

ginorwine · 19/10/2015 07:28

Reading the threads here there is much criticism about conservative policy .
A lot of people must have voted for them .
Where are they on mums net ?
And on threads such as those re the w t c cuts are they not representing their views as it was clear this would happen ?
I can tell that they may be slated but surley differing views can be expressed so long as it doesn't get nasty - a know that feeling run high but surley ppl can do so .
So to Tory voters -is it how you anticipated .what are your views ?

OP posts:
longtimelurker101 · 21/10/2015 22:38

I think Long after 5 years in government there has to come a time where "Labour did" blaming has to stop.

I'm not sure about the misinformation of Ed Milliband either, it may have come to pass, but what we can see now is a government then when electioneering said one thing and is doing another. Blatantly!

It even comes to it that they can't pass the WTC bill by normal means but have to force it through, cause it wasn't in their manifesto so not mandated. Says something doesn't it.

I take task with: "Labour introduced a policy that has further 'bent' the free market ideology by allowing zombie business to survive" purely because the WTC self employed thing has been actively encouraged by job centres since 2010 as a way of them hitting targets, which were introduced in the last administration. If Labour started it, then the Tories really pushed it further exponentially.

Justanotherlurker · 21/10/2015 23:53

You see, I have read that as you saying I am wrong, and let me give you partisan answers into why.

Such as:

After 5 years in government there has to come a time where "Labour did" blaming has to stop

You have proved my point that I specifically pointed out in previous posts, the general consensus of the most vocal of the left is to whitewash labours decade in power, yet bringing up thatcher/major (as your post history suggests) is obviously ok.

Im not sure about the misinformation of ed milliband either, it may have come to pass, but....

Is totally ignoring the point I raised and a blantent attempt of trying to reframe the argument.

As for your third point, not only have you ignored the premise of my argument (again) but you have also abanded your free market 'Go to the wall' thinking by not trying to criticise the initial policy but by trying to shift the argument onto governments fudging unemployment stats, I'm sure you are aware that this isn't just a Tory policy and was used by the 'not true labour' and is widely used across the globe?

longtimelurker101 · 22/10/2015 00:21

I was saying that I don't think you can say Milliband provided mis information because it didn't come to pass, it might have done, and I genuinely think Milliband wasn't the man for the job.

I totally agree that people shouldn't have been allowed to claim WTC instead of benefits for being self employed, its a fecking joke. As is all the people by succesive governments of both sides that were allowed to claim incapacity to take them off the unemployment statistics.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all.

I do think after 5 years of government we have to stop letting the argument of "Labour did" slide, it will be nearly 6 years soon, how long can we let it go?

Also I don't think the zombie company thing you sited is quite correct, it was a fiddle for the unemployment numbers, a zombie firm is one that is able to continue because of the low interest rates as far as I know.

JoelyB · 22/10/2015 00:26

I voted conservative.
I live in a safe Tory seat, the Labour candidate had not a chance, the Lib Dem lost his deposit. By conviction I would have voted Green, to register my true stance, but in the heat of it I truly feared that if the Conservative vote were dissipated, then UKIP might make a gain.
Remember, I didn't know the result. UKIP looked very, very real.
It is such a right leaning, conservative area, I was truly worried that we'd return a UKIP MP, so I voted for my (actually very nice, very helpful) sitting Tory.
That's what happened. So shoot me.

Bigbiscuits · 22/10/2015 06:31

I am a Tory and should be pleased about Corbyn being elected

But I do worry that UKIP will get a lot of the disaffected Labour vote and that they will see a huge gain in 2020.

Grazia1984 · 22/10/2015 06:32

People can blame previous Government as much as they like. Obviously we all try to look at the facts, not just our own personal positions. Neville Chamberlain, peace in our time deal with Hitler is still mentioned. The left mention Thatcher. Some earlier decisions in some areas remain relevant and continue to have implications. The Tories who were very constrained by being in a coalition are just starting their 5 years in power. Judge them in 5 years' tme.

OTheHugeManatee · 22/10/2015 11:03

If you really want to delve into ancient he-said-she-said, you can make a pretty compelling argument that Thatcher's admittedly brutal approach to the unions was felt by many at the time to be necessary as a result of the greed and intransigence of those same unions during the 1970s. Explicitly socialist 70s policies brought the UK to its knees, sent entire industries to the wall due to lack of competitiveness / innovation and forced our country to call in the IMF.

I think UK industrial policy since WWII has overall been overall very badly-judged, by governments as well as by unions. And I don't think Thatcher was some kind of saint, of course not; the human cost of closing the mines was appalling, and most former mining communities have never recovered.But it's a total lie to blame it all on Thatcher, as though she just destroyed the industrial proletariat for a laugh, or out of some kind of casual sadism. The militant unions of the '70s should (and never do) take a share of the blame for pulling up the drawbridge against globalisation, insisting on a protectionism that destroyed competitiveness in our industries, and pushing for the rolling strikes that brought the confrontation about in the first place.

Whether we like it or not, that ancient history is still alive and well in contemporary Labour/Tory debates. Much of the argument about the welfare state, and about 'generations who have never worked' dates back to the collapse of Britain's industrial proletariat, which in my view was in large part a catastrophic clusterfuck created by the irresistible force of unions' militancy meeting the immovable object of Thatcher's determination to defang them. This, combined with wider forces of globalisation driving manufacturing to countries with cheaper labour, and a shipping industry increasingly capable of transporting the output of same cheaply and efficiently.

The same has happened in most developed economies. My late FIL was one of the last generation of factory fitters in Liverpool, and spent time overseas in Detroit fitting the last generation of automotive factories there, factories that have recently closed down as the companies that built them leave or fold.

One of the most intractable questions for any government in a developed economy is what to do with the social class which previously formed the industrial proletariat. It's awful and dehumanising to just leave a whole class of people on the shelf, but there aren't enough industrial jobs in the UK any more. For the UK, that whole question is tied up in grief, anger and bitterness about the 1970s, when the whole edifice collapsed and left millions in destitution.

So what do you do? All attempts so far to find a solution have had unintended consequences. Thatcher pissed our North Sea oil and gas bonanza up the wall paying unemployed miners and factory workers hush money in the form of 'sickness benefits' to stay off the dole so as to massage employment figures. All that did was kick the can down the road. Blair tried to turn the same people, or their children, all into middle managers by expanding university attendance to 50%, but just created grade inflation instead and made it ever harder for poor kids to get good jobs because you need a Masters now where you used to be fine with A levels. And now Cameron and IDS are trying to force their children's children back to work, any work, however shitty, in the service economy we now have in the absence of manufacturing, by taking away their tax credits. Meanwhile I've yet to see a plausible solution from Labour's current incarnation, which doesn't seem to have any alternative to welfare dependency.

Clearly I don't have a solution to this, or maybe I'd be in politics. But it's my observation that 1) whatever you do has unintended consequences, 2) the roots of our current situation actually go way, way back and a proper analysis needs to look at both sides of the story and 3) whatever path we take has to think seriously about what real, meaningful participation the UK as a country can meaningfully offer the former industrial proletariat in the political and economic life of our nation. Otherwise we're going to be stuck forever in an argy-bargy between 'hate-filled benefit bashers' and 'the something for nothing brigade'.

BreakingDad77 · 22/10/2015 11:35

(jumps in trench with OTheHugeManatee)

One of the most intractable questions for any government in a developed economy is what to do with the social class which previously formed the industrial proletariat.

Yes x 100 I believe we should be investing in future technology, in the uk we can make quality high spec products, this is where we can compete globally and I wish there was more investment, not more fecking call centres and amazon distribution points.

I'd agree that schemes by both parties have just kicked the can down the road.

Grazia1984 · 22/10/2015 11:50

We do have some of the best lawyers and financiers on the planet. Doesn't the City of London produce 25% of our wealth? It's not all a total disaster.

In the past people mvoed. My ancestors moved to the NE for jobs in mining and came from a place where they were starving. Today we see it again - not many jobs in the NE so people like I am have moved to London to find work and feed our children - hence house prices not rising much or falling outside the SE and even now still rising in the SE.

Very long term humans won't be on the planet. Whilst we still are we probably could do with many fewer of us.

The steel workers are being laid off in the the UK currently because the price of Chinese steel has come down so low due to the recession there.

I certainly agree that ensuring we have skills which are difficult for others to have is a key to economic success if you see growth as good of course which not everyone does. So trying to ensure people base businesses here which are high tech (the 10% tax break for patent box was an example), exporting our specialist financial, legal and other services, encouraging foreign students here all helps.

OTheHugeManatee · 22/10/2015 11:58

I believe we should be investing in future technology, in the uk we can make quality high spec products, this is where we can compete globally and I wish there was more investment, not more fecking call centres and amazon distribution points.

BreakingDad77 · 22/10/2015 12:22

We do have some of the best lawyers and financiers on the planet. Doesn't the City of London produce 25% of our wealth? It's not all a total disaster

True but they were implicit in a global financial crisis and lost a lot of that wealth again, and weren't held accountable.

There have been claims that china has been dumping steel as well but the steel industry should have pressed this much earlier from what they were saying on the radio and trying to challenge this would take years.

(TBH I had previously thought our steel industry was working in the higher end markets)

I would agree about moving in the past, if your young free and single go for it, but after child care costs started overflating since 90's you need to be moving to a job that will cover the loss of extended family childcare.

IceBeing · 22/10/2015 12:48

So the richest 3000 in the country are paying as much tax as the bottom 9 million...

I don't take this as a sign that the richest 3000 are being hard done too. I take it as a sign that they have all the wealth.

Isn't it a bigger injustice that 3000 people have as much wealth between them as 9 million others?

disclaimer - I do know that income and wealth are two different things...but when adding up the problems of social injustice I think the 1 % having more wealth than the 99% thing and people earning more money in a week than others will see in a lifetime is more of an issue than the fact that we take more tax from them than others pay.

IF the 3000 were willing to give up their jobs because of the terrible tax burden then that would be all to the good as far as I can see.

ExitPursuedByABear · 22/10/2015 12:57

You are so right OTheHugeManatee

Are you serious Ice? The 3000 top earners should give up their jobs and that would be a good thing?

longtimelurker101 · 22/10/2015 12:58

Financial services and professional only contribute 15% of GDP.

London the city (as in Greater London) contributes 22% of GDP.

Its not the cash cow its made out to be.

IceBeing · 22/10/2015 13:19

exit erm yes I am serious. Wealth inequality is a serious issue.

Nobody's work is worth a THOUSAND times more than anyone else's...

If the gap between the least and most anyone got paid for an hour of work was decreased (substantially) then you would not have the welfare bills that currently exist. Cleaners would actually be able to support themselves and their families...while noone would be able to spend millions on a house (and hence house prices would fall).

Seriously, removing silly money salaries would benefit the vast VAST majority of society.

lighteningirl · 22/10/2015 13:22

And stop highly talented unique people bothering to work

ExitPursuedByABear · 22/10/2015 13:32

From each according to his ability
To each according to his need

Always a successful policy

HeighHoghItsBacktoWorkIGo · 22/10/2015 13:41

Who are you talking about lighteningirl? I am struggling to think of anyone who's individual work is worth 1000X more.

Yes people like Steve Jobs built great businesses, but he didn't do it single handedly and his wealth wasn't derived from a paycheck but from owning and controlling the business.

BreakingDad77 · 22/10/2015 14:04

Executive pay is broken and has been for sometime, companies failing but still execs getting bonus's etc.

Highly paid doesn't necessarily mean highly skilled, some businesses have been going through execs like football managers, except they get paid loads either way.

HeighHoghItsBacktoWorkIGo · 22/10/2015 14:10

Let's take a moment to give Grazia some credit here. She earns her money herself. It's her own labour. She doesn't have a room filled with 20 junior lawyers where she is skimming a little bit off of each of their billable hours and funnelling into her own pocket. And then trying to find some fatuous way to justify it all.

Oliversmumsarmy · 22/10/2015 14:16

If the gap between the least and most anyone got paid for an hour of work was decreased (substantially) then you would not have the welfare bills that currently exist. Cleaners would actually be able to support themselves and their families...while noone would be able to spend millions on a house (and hence house prices would fall).

Then those that could earn more would leave the country, where will their tax payments come from. as for house price rises how will you govern foreign buyers buying up the "cheaper" million pound properties.

Also why would anyone spend years studying to be come a doctor and all the expense that brings with it if a Doctor only got paid a little more than a hospital cleaner. Surely the Doctor once qualified would leave for a country where his efforts and work are paid accordingly.
How would you govern the self employed how would you limit their profits?

BreakingDad77 · 22/10/2015 14:29

Also why would anyone spend years studying to be come a doctor and all the expense that brings with it if a Doctor only got paid a little more than a hospital cleaner

seriously you went there with the Cuba reduction....

Have you not seen how much executive pay is and how badly some businesses have been run.....

Leavingsosoon · 22/10/2015 15:37

I love reading your posts OTHM

I honestly learn SO much about the social and political setup of the U.K., past and present.

Grazia1984 · 22/10/2015 17:43

Thanks HH.

So why am I worth £360 an hour (what I charge when doing chargeable work) and my cleaner is worth whatever she is paid? if tax went back to the upper 99% rate it was in the the 70s then that is one method of equalising pay (not my plan and I would just work elsewhere or spread the work between family members and the ilke). It didn't work having those high tax rates. it is that dilemma - put tax right up and you gather less tax in. It is the psychological difficulty that if you are offered a £10k pay rise but your co worker gets £50k pay rise you would refuse it and instead take £5k for each of you. People cut their nose off to spite their faces on these issues all the time. We are a jealous people.

(The almost 25% of the nation's wealth from the City is what I was quoting - it's a huge success which we seem to want to destory so we have much less wealth as a nation but at least the poor would not then be jealous)

HelenaDove · 22/10/2015 18:21

I really dont think it is poorer ppl who are jealous Grazia.