The Conservatives

[MammaBrussels]

I cannot believe someone, even someone in the Conservative Party, would say this.

How can anyone support them?

So you agree with the first one then, from 24dash.com? 'Cos that blows your argument out of the water.

As for gross misrepresentation of the facts... :o:o:o

Who knew right wingers could be so funny?

Nicholas sorry to disappoint your chattering, but I'm not a right winger and I certainly did not write anywhere that I agreed with anything you'd written nor have I any idea what website you are trying to now push.

I repeat the guardian article has been a widely proven to be a gross misrepresentation of the facts and if a group of adults who arrive a bit early for work experience can't sit around and chat amongst themselves then really they seem to lack any initiative that makes them employable at all.

Can someone give me examples of how the conservatives are better at caring for the poor?? Have I been voting for the wrong party all these years??

NovackNGood you seem very sure of a lot of things, yet you seem to have no idea about them

2shoes it easy for you to post silly rude comments like yours. FACT is the genuine disabled are not losing out. Benefit fraudsters and the feckless are getting their just deserts. The days of labour buying votes through benefits are thankfully over and if Scotland votes for independence Labour will never be elected to govern ever again in Westminster.

BUT THEY ARE
people like my dd are loosing out,
cuts are being made to services that people like her rely on.
the end result will be that people like ehr suffer, that is a FACT
she is a genuine disabled person, ticks all the boxes, even has the wheelchair, but the cuts are affecting her and will affect her even worse in the future when she moves to adult services.
call me rude if you like, but you are coming across as ignorant of the facts.

It does the poor and disabled no good to spend on them money thatius not there or else the country becomes like Greece and the like. Both Labour and Tories proposed huge cuts by the way. There is not much between them on that issue.

2shoes what services are being cut that have put your daughters life at risk. I suggest none have put her life at risk.

NovackNGood I could go into great detail but would rather not.
but will say that if people like my dd do not get some of the therapy they need the long term affects will put their lives at risk.
Xenia you are missing the point re disabled people.(who are normally poor as well)
they have no choice, they will always be disabled, there are lots of other things that can be cut, there is no need to target DLA fo instance.

'It does the poor and disabled no good to spend on them money thatius not there or else the country becomes like Greece and the like'

Of course there is money available. Why not cut the huge foreign aid budget rather than cutting services for the most vulnerable and disabled? Why not cut bankers bonuses and the billions in quantitaive easing for banks?

Why not cut tax subsidies for landowners who erect windfarms?

Why cut services for the most vulnerable and needy people in the whole country?

No examples of how the conservatives are better at caring for the poor?? Anyone?? They were in power rather a lot in the last century so there must be some surely to justify that statement? The fact that both Labour and the Tories were proposing steep cuts at the last election isnt answeing the question.

The poor always do far better under the Conservatives as they improve the economy and national wealth far more than labour do, whom as you see just bankrupted the country again as they did in the 70's.

Bankers bonus are paid by private companies to their empolyees and people who are jealous of others financial success should really just get over it by now.

I agree windfarms are a pointless blot on the landscape and thankfully the cons are getting rid of those ludicrous labour introduced subsidies.

Foreign aid does more for international relations and the economy for genuine poor so no need to cut that and far better than givinf handouts to the feckeless benefit fraudsters claiming a bad back.

Without QE the poor would have turned up at the cashpoint with no money in them and been starving within a fortnight.

'Bankers bonus are paid by private companies to their empolyees'

Is RBS a private company?

It's run that way yes. Think of it as part of a sovereign wealth fund.

'Without QE the poor would have turned up at the cashpoint with no money in them and been starving within a fortnight.'

No they wouldn't, the rich would have. Their debts would have been called in, the hedge funds and the speculators would not have been able to pay. Their paper millions would have turned to dust.

The small amount of savings that ordinary people have would easily have been covered by the government, for a fraction of the amount they have spent in quantitative easing.

There are some benefit frausdtsers and it is good that that is being tightened up, but as always people fall through the cracks and genuine claimants are also sometimes cut back in error, and 2shoes and missmaviscruet know far more about the real effect of some of these cuts than us, because they are directly affected.

'It's run that way yes'

The Alice in Wonderland world was topsy-turvy, but it doesn't change the fact that it is majority publicly owned which is why there was pressure to forego the bonus of the CEO.

Going back to OP I would add that there are thousands of elected councillors in the UK and a small proportion of them at any given time are likely to be barmy, offensive or a bit thick.

A number have been investigated by the police, which seems fair if they behave reprehensibly in public, or are dishonest.

So it's ok for the state to do what they want with public money as long as it is within the framework of the private rather than the public sector?
Generalisations such as "The poor always do far better under the Conservatives as they improve the economy and national wealth far more than labour do, whom as you see just bankrupted the country again as they did in the 70's" don't answer the question as to how they are better caring for the poor. If you are talking about trickle down economics can you give more specific examples of how that worked to benefit the poorest in society. Because looking at how the gap widened between rich and poor as market forces became the dominant consideration I don't see it.

the gap has nothing to do with out. As Mrs Thatcher famously said in her final speech in the commons you´d be happier if everyone was poor rather than raising the whole of the economy up. What does it matter if there is a large gap? If you want Communism move to North Korea. Here in our nice social democracy people are free to earn as they please and that has raised the standard of living of the less wealthy in our society to the highest it has ever been an apart from a very very few we don't have real poor in this country.

Wow Novack, with that last one I believe I can call right wing idiot BINGO! You've fallen into the trap by not being able to back up any of your ridiculous statements with anything like a cold hard FACT!.

During the 70s, my dad was a director of a medium sized engineering firm. When that bitch Thatcher got in she loosened labour laws and reduced import tariffs so much they couldn't compete with Eastern Europe. So that's where his company went. They shut the whole place down, making 340 people redundant. That's what Tories do. They help their rich corporate backers by relaxing laws enabling them to make more by paying less.

Did you know that approximately 80% of those claiming housing benefit are in full time employment? The Tory answer is to cut it, arguing quite wrongly that landlords will reduce rent. Laughable. And clueless.

I don't think people are 'free to earn as they please' when ideological decisions have been made by Governments (invariably Conservative) to undermine industries on which entire regions depend and thus create unemployment in certain areas. It's particularly not the fault of young people born in those areas.

Thatcher did marvellous things for this country and got us out of all the 1970s problems, of three day weeks and the country on its knees because of the power of the unions. Everyone prospered until the crash and Labour over spending which has hit the poor very hard.

IF we can get the economy moving again and make Britain the country where people want to come to do business then the poor will benefit. Now we are one of the highest taxed in Europe there is not much chance of that although France is moving itself to first place there perhaps so we might get some benefits there.

We certainly need to ensure that the state cushion is less comfortable for many.

So the options are Thatcherism or North Korea? What about the many countries in between Britain and North Korea who have a far lower gap between rich and poor such as Germany, Japan, Denmark, Netherlands etc and manage to function within a global capitalist economy?

But do they have what we have - the City?