AIBU to not understand why "normal" people vote Tory?

[olddogsnewtricks]

OK, so I'll probably get flamed for this but am genuinely interested! All the people I know who vote Tory are pretty well off so use private schools and healthcare. As a family we need the NHS and we need a good education system - and I can't see them getting any better under the Tories. Are these just not priorities for Tory voters or do they really believe they will improve even with a Conservative government?

They are just not used in the classrooms to represent value for money for me

How so? Please explain a bit.

I see a lot of tech used in my dcs primary schools - it allows them to record information more quickly and efficiently. Also allows them to teach things effectively. If they had to write stuff on a board, I can imagine it would take forever.

False, most of that has already been paid back, we have so much debt because Labour where running a deficit of ~80% of GDP which made any slight correction in the world wide economy have an effect*

What do you mean most of it has been paid back? if that's the case then why has debt continued to rise under the Tories

Beliveitornot
She worked 2 jobs to keep us afloat. (Teenage single mother if we are going down the competitive poverty route)
I have found myself unemployed recently and found work within a month.
I looked after myself as I have done my entire life.
I used the safety net to get me through that month. (What it's designed for)

It's really not that hard.

Like I said, you make your own luck.
I had to take 6 months off work due to an accident, my world didn't collapse. I worked where I could, I paid my bills. I'm not destitute because of it. Was that luck? Or taking responsibility for myself?

MrsTrent you had a safety net. That was the point I was trying to make. So you didn't "look after yourself your entire life" - you needed some help.

And that's what I think is important. The safety net. For someone who has used the safety net, you seem to think that everyone else is milking it? Except you?

But actually I suspect a lot of people are like you. I worked hard and continue to work hard. I've never been out of work since I left university 15 years ago.

There aren't that many people who have been out of work for a long time. Most people receiving welfare actually have jobs. Or are pensioners.

So focussing on the small proportion that don't seems ridiculous to me, when they're not the ones costing society.

The Tories would completely strip away the safety net if they could get away with it. What would you have done then? You'd not have had a council home to live in and you wouldn't have benefits to claim for that month you were out of work.

Where I live has never been anything other than Tory. Yet the majority would not be classed as well off. LibDem very distant second, Labour nowhere.

Where I work was Tory for decades, then LibDem for 20 years, and at the last election back to Tory. Labour nowhere.

I have never met my home MP but I can honestly say that he has voted against his party on occasion and really spoken up and campaigned about local stuff. I have met my workplace MP and his predecessor and actually the Tory chap has been a far better MP in the last two years than his predecessor.

I disagree with a lot of Tory policy and have never voted for them, but where I live and work, I can actually see why people do, based on local issues.

The Tories would completely strip away the safety net if they could get away with it

Who are these fictional 'tories'....? I have never had a conversation with anyone who thinks this would be a good idea including lifelong voters. Statements like that are made up nonsense. TM is actually fairly centrist.

Small proportion? Not where I grew up.
Lifestyle for the majority.

I am in favour of a safety net.
I am not in favour of funding people to sit on their behinds.
That's what I wrote. You read it how you want.
Either way. It will be a Tory government for the next 5 years so I'm happy.

Possibly people haven't been out of work for a long time due to benefit restrictions?
My point about the IT is that it's not necessary, but perhaps nice. In my mind they are different things.
One persons "Cuts" is another's wasteful spending. I think that's why there is such a difference in attitude towards the parties take on spending.

"It's the neoliberal philosophy. If you enable people to remain complacent and give them leg ups in every area of their life, there will be no incentive to improve their situations themselves."

Strange how this attitude changes when inheritance tax is discussed.

Presumably this doesn't apply to those lucky children with parents who can afford to give them advantages and "leg ups".

One basic fact which Labour seems to ignore is that it's only businesses and high earners that create the pot through tax to provide benefits.
Their whole philosophy is based on disincentives for personal and economic growth. You will never ever eradicate poverty by taxing the 'rich' more and more. The truly rich will emigrate or stash money off shore, the middle income earners will forgo promotion and building businesses. It has been shown (by stats) that even if you tax those on £150K pa more, that will not generate enough money to give more people higher benefits.

I agree Tanith. I do not understand why it is OK for some couples to inherit in the future up to £2M tax free (based on £1M from each set of parents assuming they are only children) while taxing the 'rich' who earn 70k (and not necessarily every year, income can and does go up and down, not everyone is a doctor or a solicitor).

We don't have details of what they are taking about either - if it is earlier loss of personal allowance I think that is a very bad idea.

Yes it's interesting how Tories disinclined to make the tax changes that would bring in a lot of revenue without impacting on actual living standards, because the retired are their core voters.
Ditto to making any changes to triple lock on state pension despite fact that future generations will either not receive any state pension or be over 70 by the time they get it.

The Tories don't want to remove all welfare state. Any Labour supporters suggesting so are just going to do the Labour cause down and send people to the Tory party. May supports a welfare state. I support a welfare state.

I don't think inheritance tax is a massive issue. Most people don't pay it. Single parents like I am can pass on about £325k which I think if it is a house going up to £500k without paying 40% to the state but you don't pay any inheritance tax anyway if you give money to your children and live 7 years.

We rely on subsidies because commodity prices are so poor.

Fascinating.

Yes it's interesting how Tories disinclined to make the tax changes that would bring in a lot of revenue without impacting on actual living standards, because the retired are their core voters.

And yet JC is going after the grey vote by promising a few more perks and to keep the triple lock, I suppose though you will be arguing that as JC is doing it there is more of a socialist angle from now on

What do you mean most of it has been paid back? hmm if that's the case then why has debt continued to rise under the Tories hmm

Might be worth you actually doing some research then rather than blaming it all on the bailout.

I also presume you do realise it was labour that initiated the bailout, right? And that had there not been a bailout we would have been in a far worse scenario?

makeourfuture

I'm sure that is sarcasm and you can mock all you like, but farming is the only industry in this country where everything is purchased at retail cost, everything is sold at wholesale cost and we pay the freight both ways.

We compete on a global platform but other countries do not have the high welfare standards (anyone watch countryfile danish pigs on Sunday?) and therefore are able to undercut production cost at detriment to livestock, meaning they bring commodity prices down.

sadly that's a playschool understanding of business -you can be forgiven, because its frighteningly rife.

An employers role is to maximise the productivity of the business. Part of that is maximising the productivity of the societies in which you operate.

No it's not. No employer has the power, knowledge or incentive to "maximise the productivity of the societies" in which they operate. That's ludicrous. And, additionally, offering higher wages for fun out of the goodness of their hearts won't necessarily do that (in fact, it would immediately do the opposite as all of sudden you are paying more for the same work). You could argue, and many have, that in the longer run higher wages may lead to higher productivity, but that's hardly a certainty or broad economic rule, and what it does for the productivity of a particular business is even less certain.

Might be worth you actually doing some research then rather than blaming it all on the bailout

I also presume you do realise it was labour that initiated the bailout, right? And that had there not been a bailout we would have been in a far worse scenario?

That's a bit rich from someone who claims that all of the debt has been paid off from the bailout. You do your research. A huge proportion of the UK's debt is due to the QE programme.

So, my problem is that people blame labour for the huge debt we have and seem to ignore the banking crisis. You yourself said that it would have been worse if labour hasn't intervened.

The banking crisis had a massive impact and continues to have a massive impact on our economy.

Austerity hasn't worked to get us out of the hole. It seems to have made things worse!

We should have invested to help the economy grow.

One of the root causes of the banking crisis was Brown and Blair scrapping regulation of the banks. So you can't just blame it on the bankers. It suited Brown and Blair to have a false boom based on debt.

What exactly do you propose should happen if wages continue to fall, welfare is continued to be cut and living costs go up? You get to the point where people starve. Children starve

Before the starvation starts, you will see us descend into third world system with bribery and corruption of officials in all areas rife. There will be some entrepreneurial spirit - people selling in the streets for a subsistence existence. Children will be kept out of school to work and help the family survive. Shanty towns would spring up as more and more are made homeless. Crime would increase. Rich people would start to live in gated communities. Some areas would be no-go from a policing perspective.

It's the neoliberal philosophy. If you enable people to remain complacent and give them leg ups in every area of their life, there will be no incentive to improve their situations themselves

Be cause rich people earn it all? No inheritance? People successful in business get there of their own accord in all cases? Or daddy's friend of a friend got you a placement so you quietly by-passed the 500 people for 1 entry level job application process? Because bank of mumand dad afforded you to do an unpaid internship for a year whilst paying your rent inLondon?

Successful people never get a leg up in life, do they?