Shy tory

[bigspagbol]

Any shy tories out there?
Just to get this straight - I believe in helping people just not people being forced/paid to help people. If it doesn't come from the heart it's not worth having.
I feel like people don't think I like people. On the contrary. I believe the benefit system keeps poor people poor.
Self interest is healthy and only when you have everything you need can you give to other people.
I just thinks it makes for a better society.

We need a pay rise but we cant afford one as a country

But we can afford to top up the MP's salary?

Yeah and pay the DUP £1bn.

To be fair I think I used greedy. It does somewhat go with their current corporate tax cut!
Anyway, I still cannot fathom why on Earth someone who is on minimum wage would vote for the Current Tories. It makes no sense.
Some marvellous things were achieved by Tories in the past (Great Reform Act). But that's by the by. This lot, or rather the people
Funding them, have no interest in helping people like the OP better themselves.
Equality isn't giving everyone exactly the same (in either input or equalising output) it's about giving everyone equality of opportunity and that will necessitate some intervention.

It's bonkers but true. They were better than the alternative . Labour need to up their game big time.

What Labour policy did you object to? Not, do you like Corbyn? Which policy?

What Labour policy did you object to? Not, do you like Corbyn? Which policy?
All the ones that spend money the country doesn't have.

Grammar I don't like the energy policy (nuclear, carbon capture and storage and tidal lagoons are the only ones mentioned by name rather than generic "renewable" and they are the three that don't work and/or are ruinously expensive). Don't like how there is no detail on how renationalising Royal Mail, railways and other utilities are to be paid for (many of these are held by pension funds, are they to be undercut and people's savings decimated?) Don't like the idea of a "national education service" to parallel the NHS, education is so much more personal and constant than health where you dip in and out as you need it rather than it being constant for decades.

But the main one I don't like is the total lack of a Brexit policy. They want a customs union but not "the" customs union, some other customs union that will somehow be different? What does that mean? Why can't they stand up and say "this is a terrible policy"?

I mean, I know they are trying to be all things to all people, that Corbyn is at heart a Eurosceptic, etc but they are not standing up for the national interest. They could easily say that the referendum was advisory only and that now all the info is known that they have decided to oppose Brexit and make the Tories really own it. Their lack of any coherent policy on Brexit has lost them my vote at least.

Corbyn thinks he's so amazing that he doesn't need trident. Everyone in his party hates him yet he's like a bull , stubborn (and stupid). He's a snake when it comes to Brexit. Whatever the people want, he wants - but he waits for the public to say first. Is he Eurosceptic ? I don't think he knows himself. He doesn't care but gives the impression he does.

And as a more general point I also think that having a leader that is elected by the party membership, rather than having a significant amount of input by the parliamentary Labour Party who actually have to work with that leader, is a procedural mistake and means that the leader may be completely out of step politically with the MPs that he or she needs to lead. I think it makes Labour a more ineffective party, because MPs are torn between representing their constituents, and following a leader elected by party members who are likely to be more ideological and party faithful. I think that has caused significant problems since the "electoral college" idea was dropped weighting the views of the PLP equal to that of the membership. Contrast to the 1994 election - Blair got 52% of the union vote, 58% of the members and 60% of the PLP. Whereas Corbyn, who was automatically on the ballot as incumbent (as he wouldn't have had enough nominations from the PLP to even be on the ballot otherwise) was elected in 2016 with the backing of 40 MPs, with 172 against, and yet he remains in place backed by 62% of the membership.

Ah I disagree with you there OP, I think he cares very much, and is a very principled and ideological person and politician, but is fighting the battles of the past. As we know from his past voting record he holds strongly to his ideological positions despite new evidence to the contrary, to the extent that in 2015 leadership election he even floated the idea of reopening the coal mines. That said to me that he had not reassessed his opposition to policies championed by Thatcher even though climate change has clearly altered the case for coal (clean coal technology doesn't exist yet, so that can't be what he meant). He had to walk his statement back a few weeks later but that said to me that everything the Tories supported over the years he would remain implacably against, like closing the coal mines and joining the EU. Remember that in 1975 Labour voted 2 to 1 to leave the EEC, that was just 2 years after the referendum, and that ideological position was led by Tony Benn, who Corbyn worked for (see here: www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-john-mills-on-jeremy-corbyn-tony-benn-and-labour-on-brexit-2019-1?r=US&IR=T)

bigspagbol with respect, you are utterly clueless.

Why don't you volunteer in a food bank, homeless shelter, CAB for 6 months then come back and tell us you still think the same shite.

I work in a disadvantaged school. I know people are struggling. I am struggling myself. Thats not my issue. My issue is the way to solve the problem. I see kids on benefits and they want more and more never seeing themselves as the problem. Its their attitude that's off-putting.

Kids aren't on benefits. Their parents are.

And you just don't get it nor do you want to.

Inequality...that thing we mentioned up thread spawns haves and have nots.

If you're a have not, guess what? You want what the haves have got. If you are a child, you're not logical. Your frontal lobe and therefore your ability to manage emotion doesn't develop until your mid 20s. Its hard to understand the status quo. And do you know the think that would make a difference, parenting support. But the Torys cut that.

I'm being generous, I'm hoping you're still here because you are seeking to understand, but really I think you want to confirm your own bias.

More understanding, less judgement.

I work in a grammar school. What you describe is NOT related to the benefits system. In the slightest.
There is a very strong argument to renationalise the railway.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure where I stand on Corbyn. But I wouldn't be voting for him I'd be voting for my local MP and I'll vote for anyone likely to unseat them!

DO people think life would be better under Corbyn? Because with the EU's fiscal policy for member states, the public spending he's promoting is impossible to deliver. Just look at the sanctions they threatened Italy with, and the issue with the yellow vests in France where delivering would send them over EU approved 3%GDP?

How can you explain the lack of respect in schools , then? Publicly owned companies do not work. There has to be an element of profit to be made. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. Show me one happy communist country and I will eat my hat. I'm not saying things shouldn't be regulated. They should be. Just enough to protect but not instead of these services.

My kids to a comprehensive. No problems with respect. If say your school has an issue with its behaviour policy. (I'm a school governor).

Public owned companies can do very well. Railways now receive more subsidies than when they were publicly owned.

Look at Nordic countries.

All privatisation was about was a way of raising income for the government, when Thatcher et so was in. Now we have austerity as there is nothing to sell.

Publicly owned companies do not work. There has to be an element of profit to be made. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Sure they work, and you don’t need to go to a communist country to see them, we have several here and now working just fine. Ordnance Survey, CalMac ferries, Civil Aviation Authority?

All privatisation was about was a way of raising income for the government, when Thatcher et so was in.

This is wrong, it was an ideological struggle of free market vs nationalisation and the associated trade unions. No way was it just about raising money.

OP I have no idea how you get from nationalised industries, or possibly benefits?? to a lack of respect.

To grapple with the more general point about privatisation, there certainly have been significant mistakes made in the past selling off entire sectors of the economy driven by ideological reasons - that any government involvement in business is bad because it's inefficient and/or a waste of taxpayer's money. That's as bad as saying that involvement of government is always better than private because the private sector is evil and exploitative. Neither are true. Something we see work very successfully in eg Denmark is the state maintaining majority or largest stake ownership in national industries, while allowing the management of those industries to be in the private sector driven by accountability to shareholders who invest money in the business. Dong Energy, now renamed Ørsted, is an example of privatisation done right.

My problem with Labour's proposals to renationalise is the lack of detail - where would the money come from to buy them back, or are they not planning to pay market rates and wipe out the shareholders of these now private businesses - mostly pension and index funds? How would they run them? Would managers be part of the civil service? who would determine budgets - the treasury? Would procurement be limited to other nationalised industry? If not, would that not be a transfer from public to private sector as well? Etc etc etc...

Lack of respect - down to the fact that if you get everything you need without being nice /contributing in some way - then you won't.

Nationalisation - the same. I'm not saying businesses shouldn't be regulated , they should.

It's essentially about motivation.

I am in A levels, and I am doing a project on whether Britain is becoming a more violent country?
Please could you fill in my survey, it is 10 short questions. And it will help me greatly.
www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/MR85DSM
Many Thanks

Lack of respect - down to the fact that if you get everything you need without being nice /contributing in some way - then you won't.

People can be disrespectful in all parts of society. You seem to be equating benefit entitlement to being disrespectful, you must see that's utter nonsense?

Nationalisation - the same. I'm not saying businesses shouldn't be regulated , they should.

Again, nonsense. A nationalised entity can be efficient and indeed can make a profit, the difference is that profit is reinvested to increase efficiency further rather than being given out to shareholders.

There's no logic to your arguments @bigspagbol.

Hi @SCD19, I've done your survey. I wonder if @bigspagbol would like to comment on the massive increase in violent crime since the Tories have been in power?