to wonder why anyone votes tory?

[traciebanbanjo]

All they seem to represent us keeping the rich, rich and the poor, poor. There doesn't seem to be that many rich people so why do they get so many votes?

lbout didn't gain power at the 2017 general election. If they want power in 2020 they will need to change things. They also have some core brexit voters too mostly in poor regional areas who are leaving Labour for the Tories at the moment as well as those against Corbyn. Uphill struggle.

May did not do well at the last election, worse than predicted but not so lady she lost her position as PM thankfully. It is also wonderful we have a female leader again. It is a pity Labour seem to be full of white old men some of whom like Corbyn went to private schools who tend to be pretty sexist - remember that comment Corbyn was heard by journalists to make when he was making his shadow cabinet in which he seemed to have forgotten to include any women in senior posts until the last minute? Labour people may not like the Tory women but at least they are in the cabinet and lead the nation.

"Mrs May’s party won 42.4% of the vote on June 8. That’s significantly higher than the 36.9% David Cameron won in 2015, when he gained a majority in what was seen as an historic success for the Tories. It’s a higher share of the vote than Tony Blair’s Labour Party received in the 2001 General Election, in a landslide victory, and higher than Labour received in their victory in 2005.

Mrs May also got a higher share of the vote than former Conservative leader John Major received in 1992, an election the Tories won, or than Margaret Thatcher received in her 1987 election win.

You have to go back to 1983 to find a General Election in which Conservatives got a higher share of the vote. If you measure it that way, Mrs May is the most successful Conservative leader for 34 years."

"Please identify my fallacious arguments"

"slavish devotion to JC, "

No one has said that they were devoted to JC or that he was above criticism, you are implying that someone is devoted to JC to discredit their opinion. Its a strawman as its an intentionally misrepresented proposition set up because it is easier to defeat than the real arguments.

Your attacks on Corbyn as a terrorist/sympathiser, any other insult you through his way are Ad hominem attacks which are disigned to discredit him through attack his person/character rather than the policies.

Both are fallacious.,

You have on multiple occassions used incorrect information, such as Corbyn meeting Adams 3 weeks after the IRA bomb of Brighton, he didn't, he met Linda Quigley and Gerry MacLochlainn, who had been convicted IRA volunteers to discuss political prisoner status and treatment of prisoners/conditions in N.I.

There are numerous other examples of your factual inconsistencies.

!"You have to go back to 1983 to find a General Election in which Conservatives got a higher share of the vote. If you measure it that way, Mrs May is the most successful Conservative leader for 34 years."

And Jeremy Corbyn increased the Labour vote by more than anyone since Attlee, a far bigger swing than Tony Blair managed in '97.

He shook hands with Adams just after the bomb. He did that. There's a photo. He invited him to Parliament. He did that. There's a photo. Hard to get past that, really.

He met Adams who was an M.P many times.

Evidence of your claim please, if there is a photo it should be easy to verify.

I think you are getting confused, and therefore factually incorrect.

What they didn’t have to do was shrink the U.K. economy via austerity,

So you ignore the rest of europe using Austerity measures, and the link i sent you before.

How did that work out?
A bit late, but it has put us in good shape

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/01/back-black-uk-current-budget-surplus-imf-says-osborne-right/

claiming that this was necessary in order to pay off the deficit (which in itself is unnecessary) .

Facepalm....

I used to be a Labour member but would vote for anyone now over Labour in its current form.

I'll be voting Lib Dem at the next election. Frankly, I'd vote Tory before voting for JC and that is saying something. Looking forward to the return of a Labour party I can vote for, although I fear I may hope in vain.

I’ve had friends with kids who are around 5-10 years older telling me I should seek this support, that service, call this organisation etc. None of them exist any more.

If it’s any consolation (I’m sure it isn’t) most of those services weren’t worth the money spent on them.

I gave birth in 2006 and 2010 - under Labour governments. Maternity services in 2006 especially were utterly shocking. 4 hours after giving birth with a ventouse delivery under spinal, and whilst still catheterised and pretty much numb from the waist down I had a miwife telling me I could go home. They needed the post-operative bed for a c-section patient and there were no other maternty beds available. Luckily DH said categorically no.

Our local Surestart centre opened in 2007 and looked lovely. It was complete with a room full of sensory toys etc. By 2009 it was shit. Like so many public sector projects (under all governments) there was a great start-up grant but never any money set aside for maintenance. Nothing that broke ever got fixed. It was like those ‘discovery science centres’ manned by sixth formers where 50% of attractions have an ‘out of order’ notice attached.

The same was true of schools. As a classroom teacher I never felt ‘better off’ under Labour as so much funding went on vanity projects. There was the yurt for ‘cultural sensitivity’, the laptops for teachers (RM pieces of shit with no maintenance or upgrade budget). There were as many curriculum changes as under Conservatives, but each came along with its own highly paid LEA ‘advisor’ and DfES glossy training manuals.

There were all sorts of pointless and poorly targeted benefits. There was the £192 health in pregnancy grant (not means tested), the £250 child trust fund (not means tested). DH and I, on good salaries, were actually eligible for tax credits under Labour. Some of these ‘benefits’ still exist - ‘cycles for colleagues’ being one. It has ended up being a scheme whereby people who already cycle get up to 40% discount on a new bike. Great use of public money... The same was true of ‘laptops for colleagues’.

Anyway, I think I’ve wandered away from my original point which was that it is very easy to look through rose-tinted glasses at our ‘lost public services’ when actually some of them were no great loss at all.

A current budget surplus is not the same as a fiscal surplus, which is what Osborne aimed at in 2010.

Running a deficit of course is fine, if its for capital spending, hmmm where have I seen a policy like that before?

I don't know what constitutes "rich"; if it's £250k a year or £2.5m a year?
If it's the former, they are most certainly not better off under a Tory government. I the former is a PAYE tax payer then they pay 45% tax plus NI of 6% (off the top of my head). Which means the "rich" pay out over 50% of every pound to the government. Most of which goes on welfare and pensions.
The labour government on the other hand treats the economy like a bottomless pit of funds.
I can't abide Theresa May but the alternative is too scary an option to contemplate.

""rich" pay out over 50% of every pound to the government. "

But they don't because tax is progressive, you are quoting marginal tax rates not average.

on £250,000 you pay 43% of your entire income in tax, including NI.

"The labour government on the other hand treats the economy like a bottomless pit of funds."

See this again, I'm all for not saying the Tories are all XYZ, but that's not true either.

FFS

..although for the very rich most of their income is taxed at 47% tax/NI as most of within the 45% band. The state takes about half which is so high given very high indirect taxes too and loss of reliefs we used to have for children, mortgage interests and full pensions, that the incensitve to slog on is lost (this is a high tax government under May and very wet and middle range probably why it won).

Xenia I did the calculation for £250k, even at 500k a year the average tax rate including NI is 45%, so I don't know where you are getting taxed at 47%.

High indirect taxes mean that the poorest pay a greater proportion of their income out in total tax than the wealthiest.

Also the incentives point? After a certain level extra income isn't that much of an incentive, as the income effect shows.

The laffer curve too for taxation is mostly discredited.

"loss of reliefs we used to have for children, mortgage interests and full pensions"

But everyone has lost those, and the richest pay a far lower level of tax than they used to.

Do you honestly think there are loads of people on >£250k who are PAYE and pay the stated tax rates on their entire income? It doesn’t happen. Wealthy people, people who can afford an accountant, or set up their tax affairs to be more favourable, have a thousands ways to reduce their tax bill. The only people who don’t are those stuck in the PAYE system. Tens of billions uncollected (as in legally owed but just not collected) tax a year - who from? It’s not people on minimum wage, is it?

Quite interesting article in today's papers:

"Britain's tax and benefit system reduced income inequality by two thirds last year, according to official analysis.

Average incomes for the wealthiest fifth of households were £88,800 before any redistribution by the state last year, according to the Office for National Statistics. This was 12 times the income of the poorest fifth, who had average incomes of £7,400.

Once taxes and benefits were included, however, household incomes for the top fifth were only four times larger than those for the bottom fifth. Taxes included income tax and VAT, while benefits ranged from cash contributions to benefit-in-kind health and education transfers. After redistribution, the wealthiest fifth of households took home £66,300 a year and the poorest fifth £17,800. Incomes included pay, pensions and investments.

The analysis shows the role of the government in lowering income inequality using taxes and benefits. The minimum wage and the national living wage are other mechanisms.

Claims that the gulf between the rich and the poor is widening were not borne out by the data. Income inequality after tax increased slightly last year “but was still lower than a decade ago”, the ONS said.

The financial crisis, recession and weak recovery have been unexpected social levellers after years of widening inequality. Inflation-indexed welfare immediately after 2008 raised living standards for those on benefits relative to workers on shrinking real wages."

Topcat.

If you google

Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA

You may find it intersting.

No need to google. I'm very informed, just don't take my knowledge from partisan or tabloid sources.

Tens of billions uncollected (as in legally owed but just not collected) tax a year - who from?

If you are alluding to the tax gap you, again need to go do some research about what that is.

If you look at the breakdown, more is lost simply to error than is lost to avoidance. It's not big business taking advantage of the system either, the primary beneficiaries are SMEs (51% 'lost' revenue is to SMEs, 26% to large businesses, 13% to criminals and 10% to individuals).

Breakdown is here:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561312/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2016.pdf

WEll the treasury its self estimated the tax gap to be £33bn in 2014-15.

Tens of billions uncollected (as in legally owed but just not collected) tax a year - who from?

NONSENSE - The UK is one of the best countries in the world for collecting tax.

fullfact.org/economy/tax-avoidance-evasion-uk/

£34 billion avoided in 2013-2014

"HM Revenue and Customs estimates that it lost about £2.7 billion through tax avoidance and £4.4 billion through tax evasion in 2013/14. That’s about £7.1 billion altogether."

"Over the last five years, HMRC estimate that proportion of tax lost through tax evasion has stayed roughly the same, whilst the proportion lost through tax avoidance appears to be falling."

£34 billion avoided in 2013-2014

Full Fact has concluded that claim is FALSE