"The Conservative party would have us believe that the poor deserve to be punished"

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27897
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The way I see it is that the Conservatives are attempting to end the something for nothing society.

If a person is able to work why shouldn't they contribute to society?

Labour allowed a whole generation to sit on the backsides and see benefits as their God given right.

This was not only a insult to all the tax payers in this country. It was also a betrayal to the unemployed themselves.

f***ing bullshit. The majority of benefits go to either pensioners (most of whom have contributed to the welfare system all their working lives), or those already in work.

Working-age people wouldn't need to rely on benefits if their employers actually paid them a living wage.
 


If I was Cameron I would say what he's saying. The people who vote UKIP would in the main far prefer the Tories in than Labour. He's right to say that voting UKIP is a vote for Labour - its sensible for him to say that.

Not all UKIP supporters back the tories.

Infact most of them see both parties as indistinguishable anyway. They do not believe either party in government will make a significant difference.
 
The BBC did an analysis of Cameron's promises from his Conference speech and came to the conclusion that (as he refused to give answers as to how they would fund the promises) they would have to increase the Public Sector Borrowing way beyond the record levels they have already achieved and introduce even more draconian cuts in services. They also highlighted his "how dare they accuse me of wanting to harm the NHS" by pointing out how many NHS Hospitals are in funding crisis with no help forthcoming from central government without cutting services - though to be fair a lot of the funding problems were as a result of Labour's idiotic PFI strategies!!!

Lastly, it was this administration that virtually overnight terminated the Careers Service, which had a good track record of placing young people into work and further education / training, at a time when youth unemployment was at record levels. Their wonderful strategy was that schools could pick up the strings, though no extra funding was allocated and very little training or guidance given to the teachers who suddenly found their job descriptions had additional responsibilities!

Don't worry, whatever the politicians say, their promises will always be empty and the NHS will never be safe in the hands of the Conservatives. Out of interest, I note that the latest promise is that I will be guaranteed access to my GP seven days a week at a time I want. Sounds like a cracking idea and it should be extended to other services like when I want to see my MP about an important matter! No f***ing chance ....

If the Tories get in it will be down to 2 things 1. The economy is doing well - this is beyond dispute and 2. Milliband is seen as inept.

Not all UKIP supporters back the tories.

Infact most of them see both parties as indistinguishable anyway. They do not believe either party in government will make a significant difference.

No, I agree with that. However, if you did not have UKIP (God I wish) and you took their current share in polls of lets say 13% I would bet that would translate into a pretty comfortable lead for the Tories - a disgraceful comment on the current Labour shambles.
 
I think you'll find that it was the Thatcher administration which encouraged anyone who had been unemployed for over 12 months to migrate to Incapacity Benefits without any assessment reviews to determine whether they were fit for work! It was Labour who introduced the assessment reviews .......
How long ago was Thatcher in Government?

As I said before , Labour allowed a generation to choose a lifetime on the dole as a career choice. They had many years to sort this out but instead allowed the benefit system to rage out of control.
 
If the Tories get in it will be down to things 1. The economy is doing well - this is beyond dispute and 2. Milliband is seen as inept.



No, I agree with that. However, if you did not have UKIP (God I wish) and you took their current share in polls of lets say 13% I would bet that would translate into a pretty comfortable lead for the Tories - a disgraceful comment on the current Labour shambles.

Again I do not accept that:

Significant batches of UKIP support come from areas which have little or no tory support:

Rotherham: (as of present)

*Labour: 48%
*UKIP: 37%
*Tories: 6%
(and were only at 12% in the 2010 general election)

but nonetheless if people are not voting tory anymore, then that's more the tories failure than "UKIP's fault". It is a silly argument to criticize people who are not voting for you and are choosing someone else.
 
If the Tories get in it will be down to 2 things 1. The economy is doing well - this is beyond dispute and 2. Milliband is seen as inept.

This and as the economy will hopefully carry on improving and they will be able to show how their economic polices are fixing the damage labour did (even if it is more circumstantial), plus the pre-election sweeties they will dole out, they will come across as a strong party by the time go the GE.

The second point to me suggests no-one in labour has a clue who would replace him or they recognise they have little chance so best to let him resign after a failure and the new man/woman can take over with a term to slag off the tories and develop labour's campaign.
 
Most of the tory defectors to UKIP are doing so because the Conservative Party aren't seen as conservative enough.

This is a fundamental problem for UKIP. Naturally they want a broad Base of people discontented with the big parties to come over to them, but even after they eliminate the fruit loops they're stuck with a support base divided up into groups that can't be reconciled. Farage's problem is that all his funding comes from millionaire right wing free marketeers so a lot of his grass roots support is going to be disappointed.

In other words, the bigger they get, the less of an alternative to the main parties they become.
 
This and as the economy will hopefully carry on improving and they will be able to show how their economic polices are fixing the damage labour did (even if it is more circumstantial), plus the pre-election sweeties they will dole out, they will come across as a strong party by the time go the GE.

The second point to me suggests no-one in labour has a clue who would replace him or they recognise they have little chance so best to let him resign after a failure and the new man/woman can take over with a term to slag off the tories and develop labour's campaign.

It think its quite noticeable that the Labour 'heavyweights' such as Alan Johnson have walked away. I think there's a general unsaid understanding in Labour that they've made a disastrous choice in Milliband. I genuinely think if his brother had been chosen Labour would waltz this upcoming election.

Again I do not accept that:

Significant batches of UKIP support come from areas which have little or no tory support:

Rotherham: (as of present)

*Labour: 48%
*UKIP: 37%
*Tories: 6%
(and were only at 12% in the 2010 general election)

but nonetheless if people are not voting tory anymore, then that's more the tories failure than "UKIP's fault". It is a silly argument to criticize people who are not voting for you and are choosing someone else.

Its not silly because it will prick some people into not voting UKIP due to a fear that it will result in a Labour Government. You can use any statistics you want but Im sure you would guess that most UKIP voters are ex-Tories.
 
It think its quite noticeable that the Labour 'heavyweights' such as Alan Johnson have walked away. I think there's a general unsaid understanding in Labour that they've made a disastrous choice in Milliband. I genuinely think if his brother had been chosen Labour would waltz this upcoming election.

Best keep your powder dry, after all it's only people's lives and the nation at stake.
 
How long ago was Thatcher in Government?

As I said before , Labour allowed a generation to choose a lifetime on the dole as a career choice. They had many years to sort this out but instead allowed the benefit system to rage out of control.
Why would anyone ever wish to allow facts to get in the way of a good argument. Try reading the independent Joseph Rowntree Report on Welfare Reform : http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/labour’s-welfare-reform-progress-date.

It basically said that once Labour finally got into power after 20 years of Conservatism, they introduced the most significant measures in history to take people off welfare and get them into work. Yes, there was still a lot to do, but the mess they inherited from so many years of Conservative policies encouraging large pools of unemployed in order to suppress working wages was going to take more than a couple of terms to rectify. At least Labour Policies started the process, but the first thing the Conservatives destroyed was the most successful Welfare to Work programme which was New Deal. Of course the Conservatives couldn't be seen to endorse a successful Labour policy so it had to go. After all, Political dogma is far more important than something that really benefits the country .....
 
It think its quite noticeable that the Labour 'heavyweights' such as Alan Johnson have walked away. I think there's a general unsaid understanding in Labour that they've made a disastrous choice in Milliband. I genuinely think if his brother had been chosen Labour would waltz this upcoming election.



Its not silly because it will prick some people into not voting UKIP due to a fear that it will result in a Labour Government. You can use any statistics you want but Im sure you would guess that most UKIP voters are ex-Tories.

Places where UKIP's support is strongest, such as Clacton, Thurrock, Great Yarmouth and Thanet, are actually seats which swing between both parties.
 
I think you'll find that it was the Thatcher administration which encouraged anyone who had been unemployed for over 12 months to migrate to Incapacity Benefits without any assessment reviews to determine whether they were fit for work! It was Labour who introduced the assessment reviews .......

Pffft, you can prove anything with facts
 
Places where UKIP's support is strongest, such as Clacton, Thurrock, Great Yarmouth and Thanet, are actually seats which swing between both parties.

Makes sense - people there actually get to see their vote count, so are probably more invested in the process and will see how a change can happen.
 
Not all UKIP supporters back the tories.

Infact most of them see both parties as indistinguishable anyway. They do not believe either party in government will make a significant difference.
Who were you in political thrall to before Nigel and UKIP.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-the-poor-deserve-to-be-punished-9768019.html

I don't care who you vote for, but it must be made clear that the tories are not the answer to the problems in Britain today.

What kind of party strives to freeze jobseekers allowance, strip it away altogether from young people (forgetting the enormous employment statistics this age group suffers) and then give away billions in tax cuts to people with wealthy pensions and Middle Class incomes?

They cut, cut, cut and cut, but its achieved nothing and there is still a massive budget deficit over £100 billion. Not even that half of what they started with.

They claimed they would cut net immigration down to 100,000 -- its still at an all time high of 243,000.

You can't trust the tories. Cameron is all style and no substance, all PR. Nothing more.

I listened to the vast majority of his speech and I think you have misinterpreted (deliberately or otherwise) what he said.

In essence, this could be summarised as:

On Tax

1) Increase in the personal tax allowance to enable those on low incomes to escape the poverty trap, whilst enabling all to keep more of what they earn.

2) Increase the threshold for the 40% rate to allow people to keep more of what they earn.

3) To ensure that the UK had the "most competitive" Corporation Tax rates amongst all members of the G20.

On Employment

1) To create "full" employment (full = less than 5% unemployed) and to to "abolish youth unemployment" by creating enough apprenticeships to ensure every teenager has the opportunity to "earn & learn".

2) A pledge to scrap exclusive zero-hours contracts which tie people to a company without the guarantee of work.

On Housing

A pledge to build a minimum of 100,000 starter homes which will be available to first time buyers at 20% less than market value and continuing help via the Help to Buy Scheme.

On Immigration

1) To put Freedom of Movement at the core of renegotiations, with Brussels, prior to a referendum on continued EU membership.

2) To scrap the existing European Human Rights legislation and have a replacement act which only applies to the UK.

On The NHS

That increased spending will be "ring fenced" for the life of the next parliament.

On increased powers for Scotland.

That these will be matched for all other countries in the Union.

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but that appears to tackle "head on" many of the problems faced by the poorest in UK society.

Unless, of course (as your opening post implied) you believe that it should give protection to those who will not work, rather than give every incentive to those who wish to do so!

Regarding the deficit, I found his comments about Miliband's speech, in which he did not mention it once, interesting - when asked why he had not referred to/covered it he reportedly said that "he'd forgotten to do so"!

Yet Miliband wants to be PM!!

:lol:
 
The way I see it is that the Conservatives are attempting to end the something for nothing society.

If a person is able to work why shouldn't they contribute to society?

Labour allowed a whole generation to sit on the backsides and see benefits as their God given right.

This was not only a insult to all the tax payers in this country. It was also a betrayal to the unemployed themselves.
I do remember all the way through 80's and vast majority of the 90's, a person signing on would stroll in and sign and walk out again, nothing was asked about work or attempts to find it, fortunately I have always worked but there are people I know who to this day don't want to work and make no attempt to find work and are finally being pushed into looking and if not then their benefits are stopped, but the tories created that system as much as anyone else
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top