Genuine question for Tory voters

[Bluebeedee]

Really not asking this in a goady way- I just want to know if anyone has changed their mind over the last few days of TM refusing to do any interviews/debates. I don't think Rudd did anything positive for the Conservative party with her appearance on the debate the other night and what I have seen of TM, she seems like she might actually be having a bit of a breakdown?

No not at all, I thought good for her.

They looked liked kids arguing in the school playground.

Genuinely mystified by the multiple assertions I have seen over recent days that keir starmer is going to be shit hot on Brexit.
He's a criminal lawyer. V capable in that capacity I'm sure but that is no kind of qualification for international trade negotiations

Not changed my mind at all. Neither has anyone I know.

It was such a left wing bias set up anyway.

Despite what the lefties say, it was a deliberately left wing area chosen to hold the debate, with a hand picked left wing wing audience overseen by the left wing bias BBC.

I don't blame her staying away at all.

Vote for Corbyn ? Never ever in a million years.

How terrifying is thought of Corbyn and Abbott running the country?

Jeez, no thank you.

YoungGirlGrowingOld - as I said, we'll never know for sure whether austerity or investment was a better approach for the UK, however we can look to the evidence of other countries which took different approaches (primarily the US) and draw some conclusions from that. The below article is an interesting discussion on the subject (from the Economist which isn't exactly noted for it's pro-Labour views!)

www.economist.com/news/schools-brief/21586802-fourth-our-series-articles-financial-crisis-looks-surge-public

"Time has begun rendering verdicts. Early last year a McKinsey study noted that financial deleveraging in America proceeded more quickly than in Britain and Europe. Also last year the IMF published an analysis of its economic forecasts which found that austerity crimped growth much more than it had expected. The larger the cuts a government planned, the IMF concluded, the farther below its forecast growth fell."

In terms of your other points - the gold sale, raiding pensions. What impact do you think either of these had on the crash and the subsequent deficit? The gold sale as a concept in itself was fairly unobjectionable - gold isn't a very sensible asset for governments to hold - and the criticism which has been thrown at it is that Brown sold it at a low price and could have got more by waiting a few years, however even if he had this would have made a negligible difference to the public finances. The under value sell off of the Royal Mail and other national assets by the Tories could also be subjected to exactly the same criticism - however again, in the grand scheme of things this wouldn't have made much difference to the overall economy.

On the pensions - yes, Brown did abolish dividend tax relief for pensions which obviously takes money out of pensions funds each year (although let's not forget that money is then available for public services), however I don't see how it's accurate to say that this "fucked the economy" - the below gives a fairly balanced summary:

www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/factcheck+did+gordon+destroy+our+pensions/171020.html

I'm voting tactically to try and stop an increased tory majority - the tory manifesto actually promises nothing that is measurable and the implication is that the failed austerity policy will continue to hit everyone except the wealthy.

If it's unfair to target the 5% then it's unfair to let them off scot free.

Presumably magicunicorn's economic expertise can describe how successful Osborne's austerity policy was and how it achieved all he promised.

How are these 4 million children living in poverty? What does 'poverty' mean in this instance.

I struggle to believe this figure.

Very interesting article, but it flip flops a bit on the austerity/stimulus point. See:

"There is no consensus among economists as to what level of debt harms growth, or whether it is even possible to establish such a rule of thumb.

That does not mean that ballooning public debt is nothing to worry about, however. New research suggests that less-indebted governments are much more likely to resort to stimulus to foster economic growth, presumably because they feel they can afford to do so. It may be a long time coming (Japan’s government debt now totals 245% of GDP), but at some point too much red ink will yield a debt crisis. Worries about a country’s solvency will lead creditors to demand higher interest rates, which will then compound its fiscal woes."

There is an argument that we reached peak debt some time ago.

The points about pension raids and gold were simply to illustrate Brown's general lack of competence. As you say yourself, there was no need to sell gold when he did and it did his own credibility no favors. The pensions raid money was indeed "available for public services" but I am sure that those who saved all their working lives in the expectation of a particular income would have preferred that the goalposts didn't move. Punishing savers just discourages the financially responsible amongst us. I could have added the creation of tax credits to his list of fucking stupid moves, ideologically wanting to create a client state of welfare dependents. The logic of taking some money off people and then giving it back was never seriously questioned. The main beneficiary has been unscrupulous employers paying the NMW (which is effectively being taxpayer subsidized).

And whilst Gordon Brown was a moron, he is a fucking intellectual giant compared to Corbyn's front bench, so the prospect of a Labour win is very frightening indeed.

Relative poverty is very very different from absolute poverty. Based on how they calculate it, there will always be families classed as this.

Regardless of who is in power, the people responsible for those children are the parents. Too many make poor choices, fail to face upto their responsibilities etc. Iits easier to blame someone else than face reality.

LadyinCement

Alright love, calm down. Here are a couple more organisations' (including BMJ ) figures then if you didn't like that one. They vary slightly but that is because they are out of date.

We can all throw figures around and debate their legitimacy but my original point is I find it difficult to understand when people can't understand the impact that the tory austerity measures and benefit sanctions have had on people.

We are not the poorest but I have gone to Lidl with £8 in my pocket to feed a family of 3 for a week. We never have holidays and often can't afford to buy essentials, such as clothes or haircuts. But some doctors are having to prescribe food supplement drinks for women suffering from malnutrition just to keep them going. And foodbanks? Are they ok with you?

Please don't lecture me about the school of life - you know nothing about me or my education.

adc.bmj.com/content/101/8/759

www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_work/child_poverty/child_poverty_what_is_poverty/child_poverty_statistics_facts.htm

That is exactly the conversation DS and I were having this morning Rainbows - so many problems are caused by poor life choices. We all need to take responsibility for our lives and our actions.

And help should be given at the correct level to those who genuinely need it, through no fault of their own.

How are these 4 million children living in poverty? What does 'poverty' mean in this instance

We're at the point where we're running out of usable underwear because there just isn't a fiver left at the end of the week. I'd call that poverty. We have no Sky TV and I need internet for work.

If that's my fault, I'm all ears on how to change my circumstances.

NB: Suggestions must include childcare for mentally unwell teenagers if it involves working outside the hours of 9 - 3. It must also include employers who don't mind me leaving at a moment's notice to collect the aforementioned teenager from school if she has a panic attack (this will happen around once a week)

Anyone? No?

I don't mean to be insensitive took but there could be any number of reasons why a person only 8 quid to feed their family. Low wages/benefits are one possibility. Another is parents making bad spending choices or failing to prioritize their kids. In a world of limited resources, it is the job of government to help the former and discourage the latter. The solution is not simply more cash for everyone. I am not suggesting they get it right all the time, but throwing cash at the ills of society is not an instant fix.

A very great injustice imo is the working poor and I favor measures to make work pay. I believe that only the stories are addressing this.

I've just read that a single mother with two children would receive £214 a week after housing costs. Is that correct?

YoungGirlGrowingOld I don't think it necessarily flip flops, just puts across a balanced view - and this is why I get frustrated by threads like these, as people make such sweeping and hyperbolic statements (they fucked the economy) when in fact the reality is almost always more nuanced. Ultimately it concludes that the time to cut back (ie for austerity) is during the good times, not the hard times - and this is where in my opinion the Tories did not make the tough decisions, they made the wrong ones.

I worry that the press and the establishment present such a hegemonic and ultimately incorrect view of the world (Labour are always economically incompetent, the Tories always have to clean up their mess) that many of us have absorbed it through a kind of osmosis even if we consider ourselves to be critical thinkers. The references to the 70s on this thread are interesting - I find it astonishing the number of people who are utterly convinced that the 3 day week was under the Labour government (I had a long argument with someone on this the other day who simply wouldn't believe me), and I think this again plays into this mythology that economic issues are always Labour's fault. I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I wish the challenges to his positions were based in truth not scaremongering (viz the endless land tax threads!).

On tax credits - to an extent I agree with you, in the long term this was the wrong solution to the right problem. However, I think your description of Gordon Brown as a moron is unpleasant and untrue, and to be frank this kind of name calling (from both sides) simply demeans the discussion.

And help should be given at the correct level to those who genuinely need it, through no fault of their own.

Took a while to get to the "deserving poor" vs the "undeserving poor", but we got there in the end

No I haven't changed my mind and I won't do. Not wanting to do TV debates hardly makes TM an unsuitable candidate to lead the country (with the backing of her team of course). The mere threat that Corbyn might win makes me scared - imo that man is severely out of his depth.

OP I voted several weeks ago before the TV debates as I have a postal vote. TV debates have never changed my mind in the past and the leaders debates are only a recent thing. I didn't watch them this time though. I find them to be a load of squabbling to be honest.

YoungGirlGrowingOld

Another is parents making bad spending choices or failing to prioritize their kids.

Zero hours, self employed, unreliable, unpredictable income are the reasons we often have no money. That and very high private rent. We are a working family and always prioritise our child. I never buy anything for myself... oh sod it, why should I have to justify my life to you.

It is just so illuminating to me. People who have no idea how difficult other people's lives are passing judgment, saying it's their own fault and voting for more tax breaks for the rich while people are literally starving in this country.

But never mind, as the person who is genuinely trying to address these issues forgot a number one day during a busy election campaign, so he must be useless...

This thread shouldn't get derailed but £8 to feed a family of 3 for a week? For a start two children's child benefit would amount to more than £8.

I think you should have come up with a more realistic amount than eight pounds if you want people to believe you.

To those of you who might be wavering about who to vote for.....

Corbyn supported the murderous IRA
He thinks there is nothing wrong with squatters (think about that next time you go away on holiday)
He would allow the floodgates on immigration to remain open
He wants to get rid of Trident thereby leaving us defenceless.
He supports Trade Unions (who bankroll the Labour party) so we would be back to the wildcat strikes of the 70s

The man is a dangerous imbecile, whose only intention is to drag the Labour party further and further to the left.

I've just read that a single mother with two children would receive £214 a week after housing costs. Is that correct?

No, it's not.

I'm a self employed, single mother of two. I get slightly less than that in Tax Credits and child benefit each week. Out of that I have to pay top up rent and council tax, along with other essentials. (£208 p/w I think)

Someone on unemployment benefits with two kids would get less than that but wouldn't have as much top-up rent or council tax to pay.

Ultimately it concludes that the time to cut back (ie for austerity) is during the good times, not the hard times - and this is where in my opinion the Tories did not make the tough decisions, they made the wrong ones.

You are right, it is always considerably more nuanced than these threads (or indeed TV debates, to go back to the point of this thread!) suggest. However, the above premise also suggests that Brown's spending spree during the boom was also a wrong decision. That was the time for (relative) austerity and it didn't happen.

Fair point about calling GB a moron - I just feel frustrated at the lack of talent in the Labour Party. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, but a credible opposition is essential for checks and balances. Brown seemed to think he had a god-given right to govern and Corbyn has floated to the top like flotsam over the course of a long and fairly undistinguished career, largely because the alternatives were even less credible.

TV debates offer little in the way of substance for me. 5 of the parties in the last debate have absolutely nothing to lose by offering their utopian vision for the UK as they will never be in a position to have to actually implement it. Labour on the other hand had a golden opportunity in this election to offer a genuine alternative. Instead, Jeremy Corbyn seems to have virtually no appeal to swaying voters of any other stripe. IMO he has swung Labour's policies to far to the left into what many voters see as fiscal cloud cuckoo land.

I'd welcome a more centrist alternative but it just doesn't exist. It has to be Conservative for me.

In that case took I would suggest this bit of my post is more applicable:

A very great injustice imo is the working poor and I favor measures to make work pay. I believe that only the stories are addressing this.

But feel free to lampoon me for stuff I didn't actually say. After all, I am a Tory and on MN that means I probably boil kittens for sport.

I did question the free tuition fees figure on the labour manifesto
assuming 1.5 million uni students with tuition fees of say 7K a year (not to mention the maintenance grants to be offered) that comes to more than their carefully costed figure plus it would be over 3-5 years over the next parliament - are my sums wrong? I admit I am no mathematician
Is the costing over 5 years of a parliament?