To think the tide may be turning...

[Goldenhandshake]

Apparently under twenty fives have been registering to vote in high numbers, assuming because lots of Tory policies have hit this age group negatively. AIBU to feel optimistic that they will turn out to vote and possibly prove the poll predictions wrong?

Any under 25's here who have registered with this intention?

Devorak

Think the whole system is a mess. They pay one lot of civil servants to ensure that claimants get the least amount and another to maximise it.

I prefer the universal income model being trialled in Scotland and Finnland. Less red tape more support for use if ingenuity.

It does concern me that someone claiming an Oxbridge education can be suckered by the Mail.

I note the 'claiming' (and don't really care) but it was absolutely nothing to do with media studies. What's your point and why are you picking that out of my entire post?

Perfectly acceptable though, I'm articulate.

Your post would appear to differ.

Different children by different fathers is a tired trope and I speak as someone who has a four children by two fathers.

I think you said that not many women have 10 children to 10 fathers and of course I agree. Are you supporting your 4 with paternity split between other men or do you require government support? If you do, I disagree with your choice.

there are in all likelihood more who have little choice in their contraceptive choices and their ability to say no, which in turn gives the government a chance to deny again.

I'm guessing, but do you mean rape victims? Isn't that entirely in line with what I said about no victim should be disadvantaged?

@ILikeBeansWithKetchup

I voted for Thatcher in her first election in 1980 but was a fan of Blair for his first term and a half. I did vote for him twice but didn't want him in power for his third term. That was a big mistake for the country.

I have combined local and general elections in my 'stats' but they were only to prove that I vote according to my ideas and not ideals. I think most of what Thatcher thought and did was smart and necessary and no man or woman at the time could have achieved the same but think the same about Blair's early years. On the whole, I have moderate right-wing economic sympathies and politics but that doesn't make me an unwavering Tory and, going back to the original posts, the fact that some people see it as the fashion to say 'anyone but Tory' has entirely flawed reasoning.

Thatcher was first elected in 1979.

Personally, I don't hold it as a fashion , but a conviction (born largely out of the Thatcher years!), to say I could never vote Tory.

But . clearly, I wouldn't say 'anyone but Tory' as I have only ever voted for one party (apart from in one local election). So I am a genuine one party voter. And would never ever vote UKIP, for example.

I cannot vote for Corbyn - nasty misogynist, anti Israel and terrorist lover

I sympathise. Shades of Michael Foot-a man popular with younger people who saw him as principled and idealistic, but distrusted by his own generation who had come up with him and seen the dark side: personally treacherous, doctrinaire, impractical and not resilient enough to govern.

My vote will never change as long as my current constituency MP continues to stand, irrespective of what is going on in national politics. As a representative I don't think our MP could be bettered: engaged both locally and nationally, approachable, ethical, intelligent, hardworking.

wow sensei lucky you! I'd love to know who it is; it certainly isn't mine who is a well known nasty piece of work

I still thought we were all meant to be anti-Israel, at least politically. I thought we (under the Conservative government) drafted a UN resolution condemning Israel's actions,and that was one of the things that creates a tension in relations between Trump and the UK?

This is not my area of expertise. But I do understand that anti-Israel and anti-Semitism are not the same things.

Moods and ideas and ideologies shift ; in the 80s many many people didn't and wouldn't wear poppies . Now it is considered somewhere close to sacrilege to suggest you don't want to, as happened with the footballer, or to criticise the monarchy , or not stand for the national anthem and so on. We have become more American in that regard, I feel.

I think you said that not many women have 10 children to 10 fathers and of course I agree. Are you supporting your 4 with paternity split between other men or do you require government support? If you do, I disagree with your choice.
I remarried, having had one child with my first husband, and went on to have more with second husband, as do many women. Doesn't look quite as awful now, does it. My children are adults by the way, but those with disabilities get some state support. It ensures they can stay at university, for the present.
As for not being articulate, that was nasty and hurtful. You won't influence people by being a bully and people will get to know your name (or name change) soon.

Probably not Dawndonna. Certain ppl seem to get away with abuse on here.

Another thing : trident. It's now considered pretty bad, even in Labour circles, to say you would ban Trident. To the extent that Corbyn seems to be being persuaded to shift on this. And is pilloried for attending CND marches.

I grew up next to Faslane so that informs my views on this! I find it hard to accept that a real left winger would think otherwise form me on this topic.

Teenagers and young voters didn't used to vote because they said they 'couldn't tell the difference'. I think they feel they can now and that's why they want to vote.

My vote will never change as long as my current constituency MP continues to stand, irrespective of what is going on in national politics. As a representative I don't think our MP could be bettered: engaged both locally and nationally, approachable, ethical, intelligent, hardworking.

Just a wild guess - you aren't in Hackney?

I also think over 16s should have the vote...............although my belief in this got seriously shaken on here over the weekend.

what is good about Tories

devorak

You're right, trying to get you to admit you made a mistake is getting us nowhere.

what is good about Tories

Understanding that every party is attempting to make life in the UK better for everyone but they just have a vastly different opinion on how to achieve that, is an important step in political maturity.

The Tories are more popular than you understand because you live essentially in an echo chamber where the things you state are problems are sensationalised versions of the actual thing.

This is the same build up to the last GE but thankfully shorter, there are these "Can anyone try and convince me/what, why are the tory's good?" type questions and anyone willing to try and have a discussion usually get rounded on for being immoral, "played by right wing press" etc, so much so that eventually it just becomes everyone preaching to the already converted apart from a few lone wolves.

In a more specific way, the Tories are popular at the moment because they are the Party who is most trusted to get a good deal from Brussels in Brexit, which ever way you fall on that argument it wasn't tied to party political lines, and however much the Guardian and many posters on here suggested, there currently is not a swath of "Bregret" voters, anecdotal evidence does not correlate to any of the polls, and I say this as a Remain voter, but even I trust them to get the best deal from the EU.

In a more general way, the Tories are popular because they believe that cutting costs and creating jobs is a better way of protecting the people than wealth distribution. Labour are historically popular because they believe that a high tax state leads to more money in the public purse leading to more spending on public services such as the NHS. The Tories believe that throwing money at an institution isn't really a viable solution and that making it run more efficiently is the best option.

The Lib Dems believe whatever is popular among the student and hard left crowd at that point in time and it's a good reason why people over 30 generally don't vote for them (because they remember the last go-around).

Obviously this is way oversimplified but those are classic positions.

The problem with the younger crowd is that they seem predisposed to see things in binary. Good vs Evil, right vs wrong. (and is a reason I wouldn't want my own DC voting at 16)

The Tories are a perfectly viable and electable party with many good policies. So are the Greens.

Almost every story you read about politics, whether that is from the Daily Telegraph/Times/Guardian or to rags like the Mail/Buzzfeed/Canary/Independant is sensationalised to the point of ridiculousness.

Not in Hackney, ha ha! Not saying where I am though.

Unfortunately I think this election is already set in stone. May might not win by the amount she hopes to, but hell will freeze over before she loses this. She knows she has it won, or else she would never have called one early.

As someone who has never voted Tory, I totally agree that too much political debate in this country is binary in nature.

I don't agree with most Tory policies - but the reasons I don't are various - some I think are ineffective, some I think are unfair, a very few I agree with.

I don't see the Tories as a party of low taxation, but rather a party that typically shifts the burden of taxes. An analysis of Mrs Thatcher's government done by Accountancy Age magazine found that the overall amount taken in tax as a percentage of GDP and in amount increased over the Thatcher years - just one example, another is the relatively recent rise in VAT to 20%, which of course hits poorer people much harder.

I have some Tory friends, mostly we agree on what's wrong, but profoundly disagree about the fixes.

Derailing the chat quickly, I'm not sure how my take on the Falklands was oversimplified?

Secret discussions going on with Argentinians about sovereignty transfer. The Argentinians decide to invade as think UK won't defend. Thatcher open to negotiations even at that point, Argentinians not open to negotiations, UK wins.

I don't understand where Thatcher manipulated this? Did she lead the Argentinians on to invade and then beat them to help with an election? Or should she just not have defended the islands?

I don't see the Tories as a party of low taxation, but rather a party that typically shifts the burden of taxes. An analysis of Mrs Thatcher's government done by Accountancy Age magazine found that the overall amount taken in tax as a percentage of GDP and in amount increased over the Thatcher years - just one example, another is the relatively recent rise in VAT to 20%, which of course hits poorer people much harder.

Well Thatcher was in a situation where we had to have a bailout from the IMF and keep business happy to make sure we had some jobs, however from stats the overall tax take per GDP equals out to around 35% for both parties since [[https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963]]

chart [[http://i.imgur.com/ZH74y1Y.png]] is government spending and tax revenue as a % of GDP going back to 1900

It shows that Labour spent a long time making people feel like they were better off than they were by spending without increasing tax revenue.

Now that we are trying to not do that anymore people are feeling the hurt. But IMO it's a necessary hurt until things are back on track.

God knows whats happened to my links

source for Tax/GDP here

Graph here

The stance of Ridley was to get rid of the islands - even against the wishes of the islanders - pretty much at odds with Thatcher's later pronouncements.

She had a lot of opportunities to prevent the conflict but preferred to signal she didn't care about the islands. She refused to listen to the opposition (fair enough) or to the Navy chiefs (less fair) who told her what would happen.

Then when the Argentinians invaded she acted all surprised - just like when she claimed to have been "tricked" into signing the Single European Act.

Her order to sink the Belgrano is well documented as being a simple act of political triumphalism rather than military expediency.

Of course once the islands had been lost, either by her crass incompetence or her design, there was no choice but to engage in bloodshed to regain them, but the fact that she and her apologists managed to spin this as some sort of great victory is astounding.

Accountancy age (not exactly the Socialist worker) -

www.accountancyage.com/aa/feature/1771890/lies-damn-lies-statistics

"Between 1978/79 (the last year of the 1974/79 Labour government) and 1990/91 (the last year of Lady Thatcher’s government), the tax/GDP ratio jumped from 33.3% to 36.3%, a rise broadly equivalent to 10p on the basic rate of income tax."

The tax burden thus rose decisively under Lady Thatcher (both on average and in absolute terms), compared with the previous Labour government.

but the fact that she and her apologists managed to spin this as some sort of great victory is astounding.

Not only that, the outpouring of jingoism and flag waving from people who hadn't the faintest idea about the Falklands or where they were and neither knew nor cared until then was sickening. Bit like Gibraltar now, although that was the news from 2 weeks ago, so it's been forgotten again..