Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

NY Times( How Britain has changed during 14 years of Tory rule) shocking

91 replies

T0pSh0p · 04/07/2024 08:23

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/03/world/europe/uk-election-better-worse.html

It’s shocking to see it in a simple list. So much damage done. There is a reason why we’re all so fed up.

NY Times( How Britain has changed during 14 years of Tory rule) shocking
OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 14:24

What's the alternative to having food banks?

LuluBlakey1 · 04/07/2024 14:28

Voterswung · 04/07/2024 14:24

@LuluBlakey1

Agree that's a stand out issue re cancer that's abnormal and I look forward to starmer with his wife's inside knowledge of how to crack that and turn that around ASAP.

His wife works in Occupational Health. Why do you think she has inside knowledge of cancer treatment waiting lists? And she is not a politician charged with turning the NHS round.

cupcaske123 · 04/07/2024 14:28

Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 14:24

What's the alternative to having food banks?

Living wage, reverse benefit cuts, regulate rent, nationalise energy companies. Are some of the solutions I can think of. How about you?

LuluBlakey1 · 04/07/2024 14:31

Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 14:24

What's the alternative to having food banks?

Err......paying people enough money so they can feed their family........stopping rent increases and keeping food inflation rates down......reducing the tax burden for the poorest rather than the most well-off........

Alwaystired94 · 04/07/2024 14:31

Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 14:24

What's the alternative to having food banks?

A strong economy for all. Not just the very top.
Living wage, Better job security (be-gone 0 hour contracts), companies not inflating their prices and having record profits. Just to name a few.

Alwaystired94 · 04/07/2024 14:32

cutting down on rogue landlords charging high rent for below standard properties. Lack of affordable housing means people are stuck in this situation.

wejammin · 04/07/2024 14:32

Crime stats also down because conviction rates are down due to underfunded police, CPS and courts, and criminal court backlogs are huge so some potential crime stats are years behind reality.

Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 14:37

LuluBlakey1 · 04/07/2024 14:31

Err......paying people enough money so they can feed their family........stopping rent increases and keeping food inflation rates down......reducing the tax burden for the poorest rather than the most well-off........

How do we get a living wage without raising the cost of living to fund the living wage?
How do we fund better benefits?
Why should we nationalise more industries when the already nationalised ones people are saying aren't working? I'm a floating voter and haven't cast my vote today so am genuinely interested to know what the answer is.

YYURYYUCICYYUR4ME · 04/07/2024 14:57

I work supporting people, but am surrounded by far too many that talk, propose, write policy and do bugger all and I fear that won't change, as doing takes real care and concern and that seems to be rare whatever the political affiliation, whether health, education, even just maintaining our roads and I could add so much to this list! I'd like someone to stop, properly audit our services, look at where the money is actually being spent and who is top slicing before it ever goes where it needs to, before jumping in and trying to change the world. If you don't know where you are starting from, can you ever make a difference? We also need a change of tax laws, not just taxing the easy pickings more or making assumptions about those that could pay, but a complete review and overhaul and start looking at the quality of those that supposedly are meant to be our representatives, but too often have their own agendas and fail to care for the whole, cherry picking the few! We need to look at wage stagnation and the gaps between the bottom and the top. and if we build more homes, we need to look at why so many already built are empty, or not fit for purpose and address that issue. I just want someone in government, local and central who cares, really cares and I am struggling with who I trust to do that!

Spoonage · 04/07/2024 15:05

Greentreesandbushes · 04/07/2024 08:42

The reduction in crime isn’t a true statistic as it’s a case of less crime actually being reported vs true crime reduction

Exactly - crime down by 51% my arse!!

Spoonage · 04/07/2024 15:06

Sorry, make that 54%!

cupcaske123 · 04/07/2024 15:09

Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 14:37

How do we get a living wage without raising the cost of living to fund the living wage?
How do we fund better benefits?
Why should we nationalise more industries when the already nationalised ones people are saying aren't working? I'm a floating voter and haven't cast my vote today so am genuinely interested to know what the answer is.

There was a similar argument when Labour brought in the national minimum wage, but businesses managed to stay open.

We redistribute wealth, we grow the economy - when people have money, they spend more. We stop wasting billions on projects like the Rwanda scheme and making our friends richer. Which nationalised companies don't work?

Missymoo100 · 04/07/2024 15:10

Yes it’s unsurprising that reduction in the use of fossil fuels leads to a fall in productivity- since energy is required for everything, from transport, logistics, food production, heating etc… productivity will continue to decline with net zero, which both main parties support. You’ll get more of the same with Labour- but worse.

behindthemall · 04/07/2024 15:10

Interestingly, my take away from that was that the Tories aren’t as bad as made out, and that isn’t that bad a result for a term that has included Brexit and Covid.

Voterswung · 04/07/2024 15:28

@LuluBlakey1 oh I didn't realise but he's mentioned his wife every time the NHS is mentioned so I thought he would be mentioning her because she has some purpose/insider theories as to what's going wrong?

Maybe she's entirely useless then? If so, why mention her.

Voterswung · 04/07/2024 15:30

@cupcaske123 I'm on just above nmw in education. The threshold means now I get slightly more pay, I pay more tax and ni.
How will starmer benefit me?

Coffeerum · 04/07/2024 15:32

behindthemall · 04/07/2024 15:10

Interestingly, my take away from that was that the Tories aren’t as bad as made out, and that isn’t that bad a result for a term that has included Brexit and Covid.

Which bits of the infographic specifically aren’t that bad?

Vinividivici · 04/07/2024 15:33

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 04/07/2024 09:25

I’m afraid the NYT has wavered a bit in credibility since they only just realised that the uS president may be a bit too old for the jobl

What a nonsense comment.

Hermione101 · 04/07/2024 15:37

T0pSh0p · 04/07/2024 08:41

New York Times is normally pretty good.

They’re not actually “pretty good.” They are ideologically driven and have fired a number of journalists because they didn’t tow the party line. I worked in US national media for over a decade.

Still, the infographic is shocking.

LuluBlakey1 · 04/07/2024 15:41

Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 14:37

How do we get a living wage without raising the cost of living to fund the living wage?
How do we fund better benefits?
Why should we nationalise more industries when the already nationalised ones people are saying aren't working? I'm a floating voter and haven't cast my vote today so am genuinely interested to know what the answer is.

I don't think you understand any of this.
The Tories had choices, every government does- Where do you raise money from? Where do you invest it?
The Tories do not raise money - they want to keep taxes as low as possible for the most wealthy. What they do is reduce spending on public services. They call it 'small state intervention'. They mean not providing universal healthcare, investing in high quality education, not having services that they recognise need to be centrally maintained like energy, water, transport. Instead they leave people to fend for themselves- which affects the poorest much more than the wealthy. If Mr Sunak or his family require healthcare, or cancer treatment or dentistry, they can pay for it without blinking an eye and it will be on tap very quickly. If someone earning £100,000 a year requires it, they can afford health insurance that means they too have access to that service. For the vast majority however, that is not the case and they are the ones who suffer from the NHS underfunding. That suffering is life-changing.
They prefer not to invest in nationalised industries- there are none left so I am not sure which you are referring to when you say 'the already nationalised ones aren't working'. They used to be: the phone system, Royal Mail, British Gas, Electricity, Water, British Rail etc. They are all disaster zones now - they were privatised so that various Tory governments reduced the burden on the State for that provision and allowed their capitalist cronies to make billions for themselves asset stripping them, not maintaining infrastructure and increasing bills exponentially with few limits on what they charge us. We now have an approaching catastrophe with water and energy and no plans from the companies involved to resolve any of it apart from raising prices.

You raise monies in several way - taxation is one, allowing private investment is another. The Tories prefer private investment- the responsibility is no longer the government's and their pals make whopping profits and they allow voters to keep more of their earnings (except it NEVER works out that way, only for the already very rich).

The richest should pay more of the tax burden. Everyone should pay something more but the richest should shoulder more of the burden.

If you invest in people by paying them more, they pay back more in taxation, they spend their extra money in your economy. If you don't, they pay smaller taxes or none at all if they are unemployed, and have nothing to spend so the economy shrinks and businesses collapse.

If you invest in health and education, you produce a population that is healthy, able to work and skilled, that has educational confidence, that are entrepreneurial and creative risk takers, scientists, technologists, people who want to contribute and give back to create a big society. If you don't, you produce a population that is unhealthy, can't work and is unskilled- there are no people to do the required skilled jobs, to build businesses, to be the social contributors and train as Drs, dentists, teachers, nurses. People struggle to look after themselves.

An example of Tory cynicism sold to the British working classes by Mrs That her as 'giving them an opportunity' was the selling of council houses. The Tory government was concerned about how much social housing was costing- there was an aging stock of council housing and they were worried about cost of repairs but more so of replacement. Mrs Thatcher sold it off through 'Right to Buy'. Not only did she sell it off- often to unwitting council tenants who could not afford to buy any other way but were actually paying relative peanuts often for houses that were in need of significant investment and repair- but she prevented councils using the money raised to build new council houses- because she did not want the State to have the responsibility fir social housing. Any new housing councils funded themselves was subject to;Right to Buy' legislation so why would they keep building if they could be forced into selling it at huge discounts after 4 years and finding themselves without the housing stock?

The knock-on effect was....wait for it.....a massive expansion in private landlords, buying up housing that they then rented out to tenants who could no longer find a council house to rent and .......charging them vastly inflated rents in comparison to council rents because now it was a privatised business run by capitalist landlords who were in it to make fortunes. Thete were people who owned thousands of properties around the country, whose mortgages on those properties were being paid off by tenants who coukdn't afford their own home and could not get a council home and, in addition, were funding the living expenses and lifestyles of landlords. It continues today.
Adult social care is another example.

It's how the Tories work- they don't give a stuff about small people, only about offering opportunities to the rich to exploit them. They don't want to be a government that takes responsibility for building a fair society for everyone.

Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 15:43

LuluBlakey1 · 04/07/2024 15:41

I don't think you understand any of this.
The Tories had choices, every government does- Where do you raise money from? Where do you invest it?
The Tories do not raise money - they want to keep taxes as low as possible for the most wealthy. What they do is reduce spending on public services. They call it 'small state intervention'. They mean not providing universal healthcare, investing in high quality education, not having services that they recognise need to be centrally maintained like energy, water, transport. Instead they leave people to fend for themselves- which affects the poorest much more than the wealthy. If Mr Sunak or his family require healthcare, or cancer treatment or dentistry, they can pay for it without blinking an eye and it will be on tap very quickly. If someone earning £100,000 a year requires it, they can afford health insurance that means they too have access to that service. For the vast majority however, that is not the case and they are the ones who suffer from the NHS underfunding. That suffering is life-changing.
They prefer not to invest in nationalised industries- there are none left so I am not sure which you are referring to when you say 'the already nationalised ones aren't working'. They used to be: the phone system, Royal Mail, British Gas, Electricity, Water, British Rail etc. They are all disaster zones now - they were privatised so that various Tory governments reduced the burden on the State for that provision and allowed their capitalist cronies to make billions for themselves asset stripping them, not maintaining infrastructure and increasing bills exponentially with few limits on what they charge us. We now have an approaching catastrophe with water and energy and no plans from the companies involved to resolve any of it apart from raising prices.

You raise monies in several way - taxation is one, allowing private investment is another. The Tories prefer private investment- the responsibility is no longer the government's and their pals make whopping profits and they allow voters to keep more of their earnings (except it NEVER works out that way, only for the already very rich).

The richest should pay more of the tax burden. Everyone should pay something more but the richest should shoulder more of the burden.

If you invest in people by paying them more, they pay back more in taxation, they spend their extra money in your economy. If you don't, they pay smaller taxes or none at all if they are unemployed, and have nothing to spend so the economy shrinks and businesses collapse.

If you invest in health and education, you produce a population that is healthy, able to work and skilled, that has educational confidence, that are entrepreneurial and creative risk takers, scientists, technologists, people who want to contribute and give back to create a big society. If you don't, you produce a population that is unhealthy, can't work and is unskilled- there are no people to do the required skilled jobs, to build businesses, to be the social contributors and train as Drs, dentists, teachers, nurses. People struggle to look after themselves.

An example of Tory cynicism sold to the British working classes by Mrs That her as 'giving them an opportunity' was the selling of council houses. The Tory government was concerned about how much social housing was costing- there was an aging stock of council housing and they were worried about cost of repairs but more so of replacement. Mrs Thatcher sold it off through 'Right to Buy'. Not only did she sell it off- often to unwitting council tenants who could not afford to buy any other way but were actually paying relative peanuts often for houses that were in need of significant investment and repair- but she prevented councils using the money raised to build new council houses- because she did not want the State to have the responsibility fir social housing. Any new housing councils funded themselves was subject to;Right to Buy' legislation so why would they keep building if they could be forced into selling it at huge discounts after 4 years and finding themselves without the housing stock?

The knock-on effect was....wait for it.....a massive expansion in private landlords, buying up housing that they then rented out to tenants who could no longer find a council house to rent and .......charging them vastly inflated rents in comparison to council rents because now it was a privatised business run by capitalist landlords who were in it to make fortunes. Thete were people who owned thousands of properties around the country, whose mortgages on those properties were being paid off by tenants who coukdn't afford their own home and could not get a council home and, in addition, were funding the living expenses and lifestyles of landlords. It continues today.
Adult social care is another example.

It's how the Tories work- they don't give a stuff about small people, only about offering opportunities to the rich to exploit them. They don't want to be a government that takes responsibility for building a fair society for everyone.

Edited

So it's an ideological problem? The Tories have done what they set out to do and make the country into a small state and people have objected to having to be self sufficient?

Dotjones · 04/07/2024 15:47

It would be more interesting if similar charts were supplied for other governments over the last century or so. During the course of many other administrations crime and unemployment have increased significantly, things that have fallen under this one. The point I am making is for any government you care to take a look at you will be able to find things that improved and things that got worse.

If in ten years time all the Tory negatives in this chart have become positives, but crime has doubled, unemployment has nearly doubled and we've gone back to using coal as the main source of power, will people be happy? Probably not the extra victims of crime, the extra unemployed and people who worry about climate change.

We need context too for some of the categories. Is the increase in knife crime solely an increase in stabbings? Or is it that the police are more proactive in searching people for knives or that the laws have been tightened so more people are being prosecuted? The statistic on its own is rather meaningless - it's not necessarily "bad" if the increase in knife crime actually means more criminals are being caught rather than get away with it.

It's interesting too that "net migration" is seen as a bad thing. Yes if you believe the narrative that immigrants are wrecking the country and we'd be better of without them - but the more liberal might not see immigration as bad by default. In my experience the more liberal people I know, who are very vocal critics of the Tories, are the very people who believe in open borders and free migration.

PBandJ111 · 04/07/2024 15:50

Probably due to labour making the country bankrupt.

LuluBlakey1 · 04/07/2024 15:58

PBandJ111 · 04/07/2024 15:50

Probably due to labour making the country bankrupt.

Rubbish.

PKNI · 04/07/2024 16:14

Floatingandundecided · 04/07/2024 15:43

So it's an ideological problem? The Tories have done what they set out to do and make the country into a small state and people have objected to having to be self sufficient?

Most people do not 'object to having to be self sufficient' - most people simply do not have enough money coming in to be self sufficient! Many people earn so little they require benefit top ups as the Conservatives have allowed wages to stagnate while profits soar, putting money into the pockets of the few at the top (CEOs, large shareholders etc). Also, those who genuinely cannot work due to disability and illness are being forced further and further into misery with shrinking public health services and care - and no money to buy it privately! If people do pay for private healthcare, they pay for the healthcare - plus the profits for the company and the shareholders. NHS contributions don't have to provide profits, therefore are more sensible if everyone pays in. And don't forget, private healthcare providers cherry pick which services they will provide - private hospitals will happily operate on you if you pay - then dump you onto the NHS when things go wrong - no intensive care beds if your op goes wrong - you're blue lighted via NHS ambulance to NHS intensive care bed. There's so much wrong with what the Conservatives have done in so many areas of the structure of what should be public services. Housing, energy, water, sewage, education etc etc. I really don't understand why anyone but the super rich would dream of voting for them!