Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think if you vote Tory now…

740 replies

Joanna1988124 · 12/04/2022 21:48

You’re effectively propping up this absolute shit show of a government and have no empathy.

I’ll be honest, I’ve voted conservative before as a middle class family their (taxation) policies have suited me more than Labour. I honestly feel ashamed of this and I wish I could’ve seen that the conservatives agenda of ‘levelling up’ is BS.

Regardless of your personal situation, enough is enough now right? People are reliant on food banks, they’re choosing between heating and eating. Austerity has been a total nightmare for society causing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

OP posts:
DownNative · 15/04/2022 11:36

@Blossomtoes

I understand that *@DownNative*. Regardless of how it’s measured, just look at the size of the increase. If it was 10 or 20%, you might have a point - the increase percentage is 87,500%.
Look, your entire argument throughout has been that 2,537,198 million people now use foodbanks.

That's been shown to be misleading which wasn't difficult.

Size of an increase also doesn't necessarily mean more people using them. It certainly doesn't mean more people on low incomes are using them since people in affluent Arras are also using them. I covered that several pages ago.

I think it's very obvious to everyone now that your argument is on a shoogly peg.

Blossomtoes · 15/04/2022 11:52

I have no idea what a “shoogly peg” is.

your entire argument throughout has been that 2,537,198 million people now use foodbanks

It hasn’t. My argument is and always was based on increased usage of foodbanks. The figures speak for themselves. You’re arguing with labelling of Statistica’s graph.

DownNative · 15/04/2022 12:01

@Blossomtoes

I have no idea what a “shoogly peg” is.

your entire argument throughout has been that 2,537,198 million people now use foodbanks

It hasn’t. My argument is and always was based on increased usage of foodbanks. The figures speak for themselves. You’re arguing with labelling of Statistica’s graph.

If your argument was about increased usage of food banks, you wouldn't have chosen Statistica as a source which records the statistics as unique users for some reason.

Don't be disingenuous now.

"Shoogly peg" means "shaky peg". In other words, unstable ground.

Can you show your maths regarding 87,500%?

Meaning an actual breakdown of numbers involved and all the rest of it. Hmm

Blossomtoes · 15/04/2022 12:06

If your argument was about increased usage of food banks, you wouldn't have chosen Statistica as a source which records the statistics as unique users for some reason

You mean you wouldn’t. However, since you object to my first source, here’s another one.

www.sustainweb.org/news/apr21-food-bank-use-high/

Can you show your maths regarding 87,500%?

You have the figures, do feel free to check my maths if you doubt it.

Theunamedcat · 15/04/2022 12:14

Re the food banks the "official line" is your allowed it three times unofficially? They do it more and its not just the Trussell ones there are many backdoor foodbanks like churches community centres that don't report figures even schools! If I rang up my school tomorrow said I was desperate in dire need of food they would help at first point of contact then refer me on

DownNative · 15/04/2022 12:31

@Blossomtoes

If your argument was about increased usage of food banks, you wouldn't have chosen Statistica as a source which records the statistics as unique users for some reason

You mean you wouldn’t. However, since you object to my first source, here’s another one.

www.sustainweb.org/news/apr21-food-bank-use-high/

Can you show your maths regarding 87,500%?

You have the figures, do feel free to check my maths if you doubt it.

No, YOU wouldn't have used Statistica if your argument was based on volume which is how Trussel Trust measure theirs as do other food bank providers.

I see you can't show your own maths regarding your 87,500% increase. Can't say I'm surprised. You made the assertion, so it's up to you to support it by showing your working out. Hmm

DownNative · 15/04/2022 12:33

@Blossomtoes

If your argument was about increased usage of food banks, you wouldn't have chosen Statistica as a source which records the statistics as unique users for some reason

You mean you wouldn’t. However, since you object to my first source, here’s another one.

www.sustainweb.org/news/apr21-food-bank-use-high/

Can you show your maths regarding 87,500%?

You have the figures, do feel free to check my maths if you doubt it.

As for your link, it's quoting the Trussel Trust's own figures. Since I've quoted Trussel Trust at length here already, we're right back where we started.

Your argument is still on a Shoogly peg. Hmm

Blossomtoes · 15/04/2022 12:40

So we’re both using the same source and somehow have reached totally different conclusions? I think you’re so focused on being right and having the last word you’ve forgotten what you’’re arguing about. You crack on, I’ve wasted enough time on you.

JayAlfredPrufrock · 15/04/2022 13:05

My Foodbank has been really quiet for the last few weeks.

It used to be 4 uses a year, but it’s 4 every 6 months now.

DownNative · 15/04/2022 13:26

@Blossomtoes

So we’re both using the same source and somehow have reached totally different conclusions? I think you’re so focused on being right and having the last word you’ve forgotten what you’’re arguing about. You crack on, I’ve wasted enough time on you.
No, YOU are continuing to blatantly misrepresent the statistics provided by Trussel Trust. It's very clear you're confusing numbers of unique users with number of food parcels aka volume.

On top of that, you clearly refuse to show your maths regarding your 87,500% increase assertion. This is a meaningless assertion without extra information from yourself.

Over the last five years, the biggest foodbank provider in the UK (Trussel Trust) states there's been a 128% increase in foodbank usage. We can see where this comes from with no problem.

Either show your maths or don't. But don't be disingenuous and try to poison the well here too. Hmm

You certainly are a waste of time in grown up debate.

Mimilamore · 15/04/2022 14:16

Just move on and vote where you want to, we have all made mistakes!

BasiliskStare · 16/04/2022 20:51

Tony Blair has made Labour hard to vote for me. I suspect Boris is a dead man walking. I do think paying people 80% during the pandemic was a good thing. I can't vote for a party who does not properly recognise women's rights. - It is going to be hard. The one thing I would say is that a Counsillor I know ( C) has done more for adoption , schools and housing than any one I know. I think it is lazy to say a person who is Conservative does not have a heart , But there - enough - Everyone must do as they feel is right.

Blossomtoes · 16/04/2022 21:16

Blair’s been gone for 15 years, you might as well say you wouldn’t vote Labour because you didn’t like Attlee.

Fulmine · 16/04/2022 21:19

Tony Blair has made Labour hard to vote for me

He hasn't been in power for 15 years. How can he possibly affect your vote now?

I can't vote for a party who does not properly recognise women's rights

Well, that certainly means you can't vote Conservative. Their record on women's rights is woeful. I suspect the only thing that has saved us from a reduction in abortion rights is the fact that the pandemic diverted attention.

Livelovebehappy · 16/04/2022 21:29

I'm not bothered much about party-gate. It's old news, and I'm betting MPs in all political parties across the board will have broken the rules too at one point. I would love to have an alternative party though to consider, but there really isn't one. I just couldn't bring myself to vote in someone who has the likes of Rayner, Philips and Abbott on their front benches, so that rules out Kier Starmer, and I can't even think who the leader of the Liberal Democrat's party is, never mind their policies - they've been totally absent for the last few years. All other parties really don't stand a chance of getting into government, so what are the alternatives? I'll stick with Boris.

Blossomtoes · 16/04/2022 21:33

I just couldn't bring myself to vote in someone who has the likes of Rayner, Philips and Abbott on their front benches

Abbott and Philips are backbenchers.

DownNative · 16/04/2022 21:53

@Blossomtoes

Blair’s been gone for 15 years, you might as well say you wouldn’t vote Labour because you didn’t like Attlee.
And many Labour voters have gone on about Thatcher long after too. Even this year on this forum too.

And she's dead.

Blossomtoes · 16/04/2022 21:57

Thatcher’s dead? Fucks sake, why did nobody tell me?

MangyInseam · 16/04/2022 22:13

@Thebestwaytoscareatory

Do you really think Labour would have kept things more open during covid? That hasn't been the pattern of progressive governments in other countries at all, quite the opposite.

It is true lockdowns caused a lot of harm. Something I’ve posted a fair bit about. Unfortunately Labour were even more for restrictions and lockdowns and the left generally were ok with thinking about the risk from Covid but not the damage from lockdowns. Which is a huge pity as many were vulnerable to the risks from lockdown.

I hope it never happens again but Labour have been keener to neglect those hurt by them so I’m not seeing much opposition there

The above posts really sum up why it's pointless speaking with the remaining tory voters.

The post they are replying to was one that detailed the real life impacts of over 10 years of tory cuts, highlighting just what their failure to invest in education, social services, health, communities, public services, etc, etc has led too. Their response, as you can see, is to skip over all that nasty stuff and simply say "Well Labour might have been as bad".

I genuinely can't get my head around that thought process. You have insurmountable evidence that the tories have and are having a horrific impact on the most vulnerable in society, have overseen widening inequality, unseen since the Victorian era, and a reduction in living standards across the board and STILL you ignore it all "cause someone else might have done worse".

Labour might have been worse if they'd been in power, they might not have been, it's irrelevant. The tories were and are in power, their failures are their's alone. Yet the tory faithful refuse to hold them accountable. When that's the level of denial/willful ignorance you're dealing with there really is no point.

That was my comment, and you are projecting. And FWIW I have voted across the spectrum.

I didn't have anything to say about the other points in the post, so I didn't.

I was surprised to see the individual suggest that somehow lockdowns would have been lesser or better under Labour, so I asked about why she thought that.

That being said, you are making a very simplistic point I think. We can say all kinds of things about the success of the various Tory policies. At the same time, some social problems are outside of that - the idea that current rising prices are due to the Tories is pretty ignorant, they are based on global problems.

On the other hand if we are talking about voting for Labour, or any of the other parties, one would like to think the policies would actually be better, rather than worse or the same. Otherwise there isn't much to recommend them as an alternative.

Peopel's views on that may vary, personally I tend to think that fundamentally neoliberal policies and the kind of policies Labour tends to prefer are both rather inadaquate.

DownNative · 16/04/2022 22:19

@Blossomtoes

Thatcher’s dead? Fucks sake, why did nobody tell me?
Point being that it's worse for people to reference Thatcher than Blair as a reason not to vote for Labour.

Whoosh.....Hmm

Blossomtoes · 16/04/2022 22:33

No whoosh at all. Neither is worse than the other, incidentally, both are ludicrous.

MangyInseam · 16/04/2022 23:24

@Blossomtoes

Blair’s been gone for 15 years, you might as well say you wouldn’t vote Labour because you didn’t like Attlee.
You could make an argument that Blair permanently changed the policy direction of the LP, in the same way that Thatcher changed the very definition of conservative politics in the CP. When people think today of Conservatives being for deregulation, or Labour being very pro-EU, those are both new. Just as examples.

Anyone who was a traditional Labour or Tory voter isn't really represented politically these days in any comprehensive way.

HRTQueen · 16/04/2022 23:55

Well we had Labour taken back to the left and it don’t go down well with voters

Also returned to being the party intrenched in ideology it’s past politics it’s doesn’t apply any longer to kee banging on about being the party for the working class

The Tories have realised they are the party for both sides at present

Labour need to work out where they stand and further to the left will not get them in power

DownNative · 17/04/2022 03:34

@Blossomtoes

No whoosh at all. Neither is worse than the other, incidentally, both are ludicrous.
There is such a thing as degrees of things and it's clearly considerably more ludicrous for folk to mention Thatcher in regards to the Conservative Party than it is to mention Blair in regards to Labour.

He's much more recent and his policies still reverberate today. We're still paying for his PFI failure, for example - 2049 is when we stop paying for it. Then, there's the impact of his distortion in order to start an invasion too.

Thatcher was a very long time ago in contrast.

mrshoho · 17/04/2022 08:43

Thatcher's policies, although a long time ago, very much still reverberate today. The RTB scheme took millions of social housing stock into private hands. The receipts of these sales ended up in Central government funds instead of being given to LAs to subsidise and improve local housing.