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

Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

An open letter to everyone who voted Conservative

557 replies

blacksunday · 10/05/2015 07:19

To everyone who voted conservative yesterday,

I hope you’re happy. Actually that’s a lie, I really don’t. But before you sit smugly down and give yourself a big pat on the back I’d like to ask you a few questions.

Do you think you haven’t benefitted from the system you are currently trying to break down? As a child, did you ever go to hospital? Have you had an education? Did you ever use a library? Have you ever been on a bus? If so, you have benefited from a system which subsidises facilities with taxes. And now you have, you are willing to take it away from everyone after you. Correct me if I’m wrong but that doesn’t seem very fair. You cannot have socialism and a support system when you need it but then be unwilling to support it for other people.

Now if you are someone who has used the private sector more than public services then I also want to know a few things. If you went to private school, or used private medical care as a child, did you pay for it yourself? Now I’m not asking if your parents paid for it, but you personally. I’m guessing the answer is no. So can you genuinely say you worked hard to get these privileges? No baby earns the right to an education. No child works hard to be born into a particular family who can afford healthcare. So why do you think one person is more deserving than another? If you value working hard and getting on how can you see this as fair? Do you really want to live in a world where children are deemed more worthy of education and healthcare based on what family they come from?

If you are someone who uses a lot of private, who are you? Are you one of the 1% who are currently getting richer? If so, are you ok with the fact that your benefit is someone else’s misery, someone’s poverty, someone’s lack of care? Are you ok with the fact that while you got a pay rise 900,000 people had to go to food banks because they literally didn’t have enough money to feed themselves to survive? Do you really believe that you work harder than these people?

If you aren’t one of these few people benefitting from this system then why have you voted for it? Conservatives use rhetoric of working hard and fairness but this is simply not the reality. If you start life without a lot, to get out of that is hard. “Success” stories are pinned up to show that if you work hard you get somewhere. But they are stories because they are anomalies. To come from a background of little education or money and to get a career you want is not the common way, and you can’t do it without a benefit system. We do not live in a system where if you work hard you get somewhere, the system the conservatives are creating means that if you start off well off you stay that way. Because someone who goes to a private school with tiny class sizes and one on one help does not have to work as hard as someone at an underachieving state school with over worked underpaid staff and huge classes. They just don’t.

Now if you are either one of these types of people you have to question whether you really do believe in what you have voted for. Because in voting conservative you are saying you are happy with the last 5 years. You are endorsing food banks. You are endorsing cutting care for the elderly and the mentally ill. You are endorsing a party where over half the MPs voted against gay marriage. You are saying yes to the NHS being privatised. You are saying you are happy with people being put off education based not on ability or passion but by money. You are saying yes to victimising the poor and disabled and scapegoating people based on where they come from. You are saying that you are ok with the incredible inequality in our country today and you are saying you want more of it.

I do not wish poverty on anyone. It is a cruel and harsh life. But what I do wish for you is that you at least experience it. If not first hand, that you witness the harsh trapping reality that is poverty. The gruelling cycle that doesn’t allow a parent to feed their children. That doesn’t allow for parents to feed themselves. And that you see that this is people who are working. People with jobs. And if they aren’t I hope you see that a life on benefits is not the picnic people make it out to be. Nobody wants to be on benefits. Maybe if you see this you will see what you have voted for.

And if you are ok with all of this then you make me sick. I can’t put it any other way. I am so ashamed to come from a country where this is apparently what the majority think. That the majority of people are too selfish to accept any form of tax rise to support those in our society who need help makes me so incredibly sad. Truly you should be ashamed of yourself that you can so heartlessly put yourself first and not see the consequences. I hope that in the next 5 years you fully appreciate what you did yesterday. I hope you know what you have supported and I hope one day you feel guilty. Because I am scared of what the next 5 years will bring and you should be too.

OP posts:
weeburrower1 · 15/05/2015 14:17

Four words to explain how TTIP puts public services at risk - Investor State Dispute Settlement. That's the damaging part of TTIP.

TwartFaceBeetj · 15/05/2015 14:18

Isitme

Again you have quoted the 'shock' soundbites and not anything from further on in the article where it concludes that actually the 16-24 year olds have better skills then people people in there 50-60 or even how the removing the northern island results, significantly changes the results in favour of a much higher overall ability.

Also any article were the results have been through research done by the Taxpayers alliance Is not a neutral independent result because it is linked to the tory party
powerbase.info/index.php/Taxpayers%27_Alliance

Would you believe anything a labour/leftwing think tank published?

The nationwide survey was conducted by researchbods, and they only used 2000 12-14 year olds overs 11 days, we don't know from what part of the country, or even what sets these pupils were in, they could of gone round so many schools, only interviewing the lowest sets in each year.
So only 2000 children from the whole of Britains pupils, are taken for a cross section of all pupils.

shelly if you want evidence of how newspaper media does have an effect on SOME voters. You only have to look at isitme and the origin of articles linked.

Isitmebut · 15/05/2015 14:27

Thank you *weeburrower18 ... hopefully a starter for 10;, "damaging" how, please explain.

The last time I looked, the private sector wanted shareholder protection against, say, politicians of one party,committing to long term or expensive projects i.e. an NHS computer system or a brace of overly large aircraft carriers, and then those politicians, or those replacing them, coming in and trying to cancel those projects - causing financial losses to the companies involved.

Even if the private sector should not have any protection against political numb-nuts spending taxpayers money badly under a TTIP, how does that DIFFER from any legal protection/litigation rights they, the private sector, has now?

weeburrower1 · 15/05/2015 14:39

To keep it short and sweet, any corporation can sue the government (at any level) for anything that they consider to be limiting their profits. In other words, the private sector has the public sector over a barrel as any investors' (corporations, really) profits will basically have to be the deciding factor. Not only can this limit the government (at any level) in implementing their own policies, but it could end up costing the public purse in payouts.

I'll have a look for some links tonight but the best example to look for is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the impact that ISDS within this has had in Canada.

Isitmebut · 15/05/2015 14:41

TwartFaceBeetj .... "the origin of the articles" rather than the specifics within, still hiding behind that one, from those who think everything in the Daily Mirror is gospel? lol

Yup everyone like the OECD and Tristram HUnt, a possible future PM of this country (lol), is wrong - and those within the teaching establishment telling a Conservative coalition that they know best, above government and no changes are needed - will always be right. Got it.
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/labour-admits-great-crime-on-education-tristram-hunt-says-his-party-encouraged-schools-to-aim-too-low--and-pupils-paid-the-price-9053693.html

You mentioned 16-24 year olds, during the Brown boom when we found jobs for 2-3 million new citizens and record UK employment, WHY did we have 580,000 unemployed in early 2004 and 710,000 before the financial crash - as they were OVER qualified???

Add it all up and there is a message there, the system 'was not working' and in a real crisis, rather than the ones Mr Miliband was making up for his manifesto.

Isitmebut · 15/05/2015 14:57

weeburrower1 .... "limiting their profits" sounds a tad vague, so will the 'profits' be set before hand, otherwise how will anyone know, never mind prove, they are being "limited" or indeed exceeded?

So far, looking at the real world and probably how commercial contracts work, I suspect my version is closer to the truth - and numb-nut politicians without a collective business brain between them, or those whose membership don't want competition in public services (possibly the same) are using some formalising of contracts to promote their own agenda.

A company can not get half way through a project and say I'm not going on as my profit isn't enough, and walk away without penalty, costing taxpayers £billions.

So why should politicians/governments have that 'walk away' protection if either make incompetent initial decisions, or change their mind later?

So I reiterate, what is the main difference to the commercial contract law that exists today?

weeburrower1 · 15/05/2015 15:12

I have no knowledge or interest in current commercial law, I'm only really interested in protecting public services. There's a very clear potential for a clash between government/local authority policies and corporate interests.

You're right about the limiting of profits (or projected profits) being vague- that's one of the problems. That very issue has been raised in Canada where all too often the finding goes in favour of the 'investor' on that basis.

An example I've saw used is that if it is a government public health policy to change the packaging on cigarettes, they're then open to be sued because it can be considered to limit the 'investors' future profits. There is a fancy word for it but I can't remember it, ex-something.

I'm sure there are both many advantages and disadvantages in TTIP, but ISDS is a big problem, and that's before you even consider the impact on the regulatory process.

TwartFaceBeetj · 15/05/2015 15:13

Isitme

You seem to be talking to me as if I am fighting labours corner.

I am pointing out, how you are conducting yourself on here with 'shock' soundbitesquotes and relying on biased research, statistics and reporting.

As I said previously, would you take stats, and research done by a labour / leftwing think tank, on face value?
Then why would you take from conservative one?

History

The TPA was founded in 2004 by "a group of "libertarian" Conservatives, frustrated by what they saw as the party's decision to ditch its traditional tax cutting message."[5] At the time the Conservative Party felt the need to match the Labour Party's spending plans, and the TPA aimed to represent, in the words of founder and Chief Executive Matthew Elliott, those "who want to have lower taxes and lower spending".[5] The attraction for donors, many associated with the Conservatives, is the ability of the TPA "to "fly kites" for policy ideas that may go on to be adopted as Conservative policy.

The TPA's campaigning approach focussed on the media, relying in part on the reduction in journalists' investigation budgets. It aims to shape public opinion through the media by packaging its research "into brief, media-friendly research papers, complete with an eye-catching headline figure to give reporters a ready-made "top line"."[5] Its research is often based on "using the government's own data and Freedom of Information requests to winkle out examples of public sector waste"

The TPA's income from donations rose from around £68,000 in 2005 to around £1m in 2009

Taken from Wikipedia incase you didn't like the original link I use previously.

P.S The Mirror is one paper I do not read.
I do read The Telegraph, The Times, The independent, The I, The Guardian, and Shock The Daily Fail

Isitmebut · 15/05/2015 15:43

TwartFaceBeetj .... I love it on these boards as talk about 'shy Tories' as when I compare the records of the two main parties I get not in Labour corner denials, including from the OP.

So you don't like the TPA, got it, please provide your own qualified figures if you can find them, as it took around 5-years for The Times citing various disclosure acts to find out the full details of Brown's 1997/8 gold sales.

So OK none of these government quangos or local authority non jobs exist, there was not over 1 million new public sector employees hired from 1997, there was not a big spike up in this employment in 2008, the unfunded public sector pension fund liability is not £1.1 trillion on top of our £1.5 tril of national debt - and Labour did not waste countless £billions.

Despite the facts.

TwartFaceBeetj · 15/05/2015 16:16

Are you actually a politician in RL?

As you are very good at missing points and deflecting.

Isitmebut · 15/05/2015 16:33

No, and after all the points/quangos/job descriptions I raised, your only concern was too pooh pooh them as much of the source the taxpayers alliance, formed as so much of this 'stuff' was hidden by Labour as annual government spending went up by 57%, and no one knows where the money went - back at ya.

If there was no detail, I would be deflecting, if there was detail and no counter figures, someone else is.

Osborne formed the Office for Budget Responsibility as the national books under the Brown/Balls watch could no longer be relied upon e.g. ooops, where did that £157 bil a year deficit, COME from, there is a trend here.

TwartFaceBeetj · 15/05/2015 16:37

In the interests of political balance on biased statistics and research. Here is a list of the top think tanks and who their interests lie with.
So anything coming from them (all of them)

I would personally take with a pinch of salt and if bothered would look deeper into the subject.

This list maybe a little out of date because it was published in 2008.....

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1576447/The-top-twelve-think-tanks-in-Britain.html

TwartFaceBeetj · 15/05/2015 17:01

Here is a good report, and explains how the two sides can seemingly be talking about the same thing and both claiming to be right www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

And if you bothered to read all that, then here is another link, try and work out which one deficit they are talking about,

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

Don't be mislead by that title ^^ it's actually very pro tory and very scathing of labour

caroldecker · 15/05/2015 18:28

here is an EU document on the approach to the ISDS in the TTIP and contains the quote below:

These much needed clarifications will make sure that companies cannot be compensated just because their profits have been reduced through the effects of regulations enacted for a public policy objective

Isitmebut · 16/05/2015 01:27

TwartFaceBeetj ... re the fact "the Tories have piled on more debt than Labour" as some pathetic excuse for Labour overspending - I've explained this about 50 times on the boards here, so lets hope the 51st is a charm - as I'll use the 'Jack and Jill" approach to annual Budget Deficits and National Debt.

If you had a credit card with a £1,000 balance on it in April, and put on £157 in May, as each month it accumulates, at the end of the month the balance would be £1,157 plus interest.

As in 2010 Labour passed over to the coalition £1 trillion of National Debt and an annual government Budget Deficit (overspend) of £157 billion, f the annual overspend was not cut in any way through 2010 - as we entered 2011, the National Debt would be £1.157 trillion plus interest, and whatever the UK budget deficit/overspend in 2011 as accumulates, will be then added to that £1.157 trillion National Debt figure.

Got it so far?

So unless anyone believes that the Conservative coalition should have cut the £157 billion annual overspend that Labour passed them on Day One, which would have been REAL AUSTERITY - of course the Conservatives piled on more debt in 5-years than Labour as that is what Labour left them - when the Conservatives in 1997 left a £400 billion National Debt and the (then) annual overspend, due to balance in 2001, which it did.

Labour with the new extra tax receipts of a financial bubble, and so government spending went from over £400 bil in 1997 to over £600 billion in 2007/8, instead of paying off national debt, decided from 2001/2 to BORROW around £30-40 billion a year extra - so come 2010 the unbalanced economy they build, once the tax receipts fell away and running a £30 bil plus budget deficit/overspend UK economy = a £2010 £157 bil a year figure.

As the economic crash began in 2008, it would have been clear to the UK Treasury/government, that they had to cut spending drastically or raise taxes drastically, probably both.

Instead Labour cut nothing and raised taxes i.e. National Insurance and Fuel Duty a bit, and if the independent OBR had been formed back then - they would have been demanding cuts/taxes figures and screaming incompetence from the top of Whitehall.

And this is why every Labour leader/MP hopeful saying "Labour did not overspend during their last administration" - will be just as economically incompetent as their predecessors.

TwartFaceBeetj · 16/05/2015 06:53

FFS you didn't read the links did you? and are just carrying on with your blah blah blah labour are evil conservatives are the savior of our souls.

I even pointed out on the SECOND one to not BE misled by the Title

Linguini · 16/05/2015 10:18

Twartface- Isitmebut is definitely a politician IRL ! Or he works at the Daily Fail. Or both.
Claig might b one too. They can't say though or they'd get trolled off the site.
Id miss all of isitme's Daily Fail articles if that were to happen.

LumpySpacedPrincess · 16/05/2015 11:28

I reckon Isitmebut and claig are actually the same person.

You never see them is the same room together.

Da Da Daaaaa!!!!

TwartFaceBeetj · 16/05/2015 11:32

Grin aww my phone won't let me use it Sad Grin

claig · 16/05/2015 11:54

Please don't compare me to Isitmebut, I am known for speaking common sense.

I am not a politician or the country would not be in the mess that it is. I wouldn't put up with that metropolitan muddle. The first thing I'd do is sack all the teenage advisers from Oxbridge and restore some common sense.

claig · 16/05/2015 11:57

And as for writing for the Daily Mail, it would be the highest honour possible (and would go along with a deservedly high salary no doubt) but I know my place, only the best write for the Daily Mail.

claig · 16/05/2015 12:13

To even suggest that I or anyone else might be a "politician" is an egregious insult that I would not wish on my worst enemy, but the suggestion that I may be a Daily Mail journalist is flattery that I am not worthy of.

I agree with Lynton Croby when it comes to our metropolitan Oxbridge commentariat and our teenage Oxbridge political class. I am proud to be no part of that lot.

"Lynton Crosby: 'the so-called experts have lost touch with ordinary people'
...
The problem with political commentary and punditry in this country is that it’s conducted by a bunch of people most of whom live inside the M25 who could never live on the £26,000 that is the average annual earnings of people in this country. Most went to Oxbridge, talk only to themselves and last time they met a punter was when they picked up their dry cleaning.
...
And what about Mr Miliband as a candidate?

“He really was a sort of first year politics graduate who thought he had the answers to the world’s problems - who’d done a year of the course and it was just that other people hadn’t been as smart as him in the past to implement the policies that he believed in.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11608589/Lynton-Crosby-the-so-called-experts-have-lost-touch-with-ordinary-people.html

claig · 16/05/2015 12:18

However, Isitmebut being a "politician", is somewhat plausible.

Out of touch, politically correct, deluded, in thrall to teenage theories and prone to talking twaddle.

LumpySpacedPrincess · 16/05/2015 12:20

claig gets a special bonus everytime he types teenage advisors or Oxbridge.

claig · 16/05/2015 12:22

Then I would be rich by now and would have had a sex change.