Reasons to not vote Tory this GE

[Bluebeedee]

1. Bedroom tax
2. Denying disability benefit to 165,000 people
3. Scrapping housing benefit for 18-21 year olds
4. Benefit cap
5. Rise in uni tuition fees
6. Junior doctors' contracts
7. Scrapping nurses' bursaries
8. Snoopers' charter
9. Social care cuts
10. Public sector pay freeze

10. NHS "10 year diet"

There are many many more!

Corbyn wants to invest in public services- education and health by taxing the rich more. Surely you'd have to be completely ignorant and selfish to not agree with this? 4 more years of the Tories will be the end of the NHS, we'd be fucking stupid to let this happen.

1. You are making the massive assumption that all those on zero hours contracts are capable of a nursing degree, is that what you are saying?
2. I value human life as a result of a terrosist attack exactly the same as that which requires the support of social care, the problem is one is a certainty and the other a possibility.
3. So you believe that in the interim people who need social care should not receive it, but we should instead use that money elsewhere? Do you think there are areas we could look at before doris loses the wheelchair?

10. Fair enough, nhs and local government employees are free to move with the labour market - your fine with an nqt teacher in your kids gcse year right?

"1. Bedroom tax Not paying benefits for empty rooms."

Lots of them aren't empty... they have children in them, children that don't count as needing their own room because they're under 10, or 2 - so they're supposed to move until their children reach that age.

Except there's no smaller housing stock to move to.

They can of course move out of the area, but that means giving up their jobs, school places, losing childcare from friends and family.

Pensioners however, they can have as many empty rooms as they want, for free.

"2. Denying disability benefit to 165,000 people Stopping welfare to those that dont need it."

The appeal system isn't supposed to be what grants benefits, firstly it means people with disabilities having no income until they win at appeal, secondly the appeal costs the government extra money - it's supposed to be a back up for the odd case.

"3. Scrapping housing benefit for 18-21 year olds Live with your parents or pay your own rent."

And if you can't do either?

1. So did the policy work? Is there now free movement of people according to housing need in the social housing sector?
2. So is the system effectively providing funds, to those who meet its criteria, in a timely manner?
3. So homelessness is a legitimate state for an 18-24 year old?

1. NRPs with a child who needs a bedroom but is "resident" elsewhere? Its a hard choice but I dont think the costly welfare state needs to pay for a child to have a bedroom in 2 houses.
2. Have you seen the number of people that are successful on appeal? Why is that a bad thing?
3. What about care leavers, what about young parents Vulnerable groups can still claim, its not a blanket ban.
4. Wheres the focus on tax avoidance that costs the state even more. what makes you think there isn't a focus on tax avoidance, there is.
5. you start paying as soon as you earn £21k Yes that's why more students from poorer backgrounds are going to university
6. You are clearly uninformed on this point. or maybe you are believing the alt left propaganda.
7. we need to train nurses, they are now disincentivised. Possibly but we dont have unlimited money, a training place followed by a guaranteed job wont go unfilled long.
8. Invasion of privacy. is better than terrorism.
9. Cutting care to the disabled and elderly but still forking out for £££ in MPs luxury expenses. The politics of envy, 'the disabled and elderly' can stand to become MPs as well.
10. Public sector pay freeze Living within our means. Magic money tree

10. NHS "10 year diet" Living within our means. Magic money tree

Its a hard choice but I dont think the costly welfare state needs to pay for a child to have a bedroom in 2 houses.

I don't think that a child should have to sleep on a sofa because a court has decided that.

is better than terrorism

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

There are plenty of working parents paying private rent that don't have the luxury of a room per child.

hhmmm I thought there was millions of people on zero hours contracts desperate for the stability of a full time job

Nope, Labour have latched onto something that isn't really an issue.

Whilst there are some unscrupulous employers who extort them, The tory coalition made exclusivity of said contracts illegal, plus zero hour contracts include a wide range of jobs and are not just at the lowest sector.

If you look at the data, the people who are happy with their current employment are actually lower than those on normal contracts, whilst the numbers are not insignificant the amount of people on zero hour contracts are a tiny minority.

Plus you have to look at why zero hours contracts boomed, and it correlates quite consistently with tax credits.

My working parents didn't have a room per child.

7. You are making the massive assumption that all those on zero hours contracts are capable of a nursing degree.

No I am saying its presumptuous to suggest that millions of people can't.
8. one is a certainty and the other a possibility.
Sadly terrorism is almost a certainty these days.
9. So you believe that in the interim people who need social care should not receive it
NO, they should get it, but we need to check they need it and make sure its provided efficiently and cost effectively.
10. your fine with an nqt teacher in your kids gcse year right?
Teachers have to start somewhere but I would expect a school to put the trainees in Y7-9 and more experienced teachers in Y10-11.

They can of course move out of the area, but that means giving up their jobs, school places, losing childcare from friends and family

I have had to move out of area because of costs. Why should families on benefits not have to face the same realities as people in work?

anon its been great debating with you, im sure the market left to its own devices will self correct, but i still think that there are a good to many people who are disadvantaged and too many politicians make a soundbite rather than a working policy.

Not a room per child. A room for a child at all. And if working parents can't afford for their children to have a bedroom, albeit shared with siblings, then there's something very wrong. This is exactly why I hate the whole "hard working families" mantra. Families work hard and still can't afford basic things like bedrooms.

The elderly and disabled can run to be MPs as well - ha, tell that to anyone who lacks capacity to make decisions about their own lives, let alone represent an entire constituency. Tell that to someone whose wheelchair has been taken away, costing them their freedom, while they watch crates of champagne arriving for yet another fancy dinner.

I don't think that a child should have to sleep on a sofa

I agree with the sentiment but why should families on benefits be immune to the realities that working families are exposed to? Its the working families that have to pay the taxes.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Judicial oversight

Timeforabiscuit

I agree with your destination, I think we just disagree on how to get there.

"Tell that to someone whose wheelchair has been taken away, costing them their freedom, while they watch crates of champagne arriving for yet another fancy dinner."

What fantasy island is this from?

Gosh, there is a thread about culture shock. I think Anon should have a look. Their future is to bring the United Kingdom back to the dark ages and have distressed families living on top of each other and shit in a bucket - a hole in the ground is too good for them -. Great Britain is a joke.

AliceTown

Your making an unrealistic comparison. Why are you comparing the elderly to MPs rather than doctors, pilots, footballers or any other profession.
You think doctors, pilots or foot ballers dont drink champagne, even students get champagne at their graduation (at least I did when I graduated).

Should champagne be banned, all money seized by the state and shared out equally? I dont think there is any country in the world that has solved the problem of an aging society.

Anon Its the working families that have to pay the taxes. (sic)

It's the working families who have to go to food banks in order to pay for the taxes. But if you're happy for those to shit in a bucket, then so be it. You really have a very low opinion of humanity.

Great Britain is a joke

So why is the EU so worried about other countries following us and escaping.

Anon My daughter didn't have champagne at her graduation, a double first from a Red Brick university, because she doesn't drink.

Anon Its the working families that have to pay the taxes. (sic)

And its than kind of attitude that is bringing a Tory landslide

It's the working families who have to go to food banks in order to pay for the taxes That go to people who dont work and dont pay taxes to have empty rooms, free prescriptions, free council tax, free ...

Anon who are the EU? They are a group of 27 countries who all work together to make Europe a great trading bloc. I doubt any of them would want to follow the train crash that is Teresa Mae.

What on earth are you talking about? You argued the state doesn't have money. I pointed out it has plenty of money for luxuries when those in charge "need" them.