The Conservative Party

[The perfect fumble]

Meanwhile, in the real world, the real idealogues have brought us to this....

Emergency workers being hired to handle post-Brexit disruption...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-being-hired-to-handle-post-brexit-disruption

The home secretary, Sajid Javid, last month refused to rule out the possibility that a no-deal Brexit could cause a rise in crime and widespread protests escalating into weeks of civil disorder.

Contingency plans for a no-deal departure drawn up by the National Police Coordination Centre warned that shortages of medicine could “feed civil disorder”, while price rises could prompt “widespread protest which could then escalate into disorder”.

The document said there could be an increase in crime, notably theft and robbery, amid shortages of food and drugs, as well as the “expectation that more people will become ill”.

And if we don't have riots and looting over Brexit there's a good chance we'll have them over this...

Halt universal credit or face summer of discontent, Gordon Brown tells PM....

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/10/gordon-brown-halt-universal-credit-rollout

Esther McVey, the work and pensions secretary, reportedly told the cabinet last week that half of all lone parents and two-thirds of couples with children stand to lose £2,400 a year – £200 each month – once they are transferred to universal credit.

Brown will say: “As one of the architects of tax credits I remind people that it was difficult enough to introduce them even when we were spending billions more and raising benefits. But to impose universal credit – and to force 3 million to reapply for their benefits next year – when, on top of a child benefits freeze, the government is spending £3bn less, is chaotic, cruel and vindictive, far beyond austerity.

“For the first time that any of us can remember, the safety net is not now the welfare state but charity – and the lifeline for families in need is not social security but food banks. Voluntary groups are now being swamped with desperate and almost unanswerable requests for help.”

The Tories, one nation, moderate, patriotic.

 

[Damocles]

So, if you clear away the evasion and the "look over there, look over there!" You don't know why you lost the party, or more likely you do, but you don't want to say.

We lost the Party because after Blair, every leader was slightly more to the left than the last and the electorate don't want that and vote for it.

Now tell me why a left Labour leader has never won a General Election in the modern history of the Party.

 

[The perfect fumble]

We lost the Party because after Blair, every leader was slightly more to the left than the last and the electorate don't want that and vote for it.

That's not an answer, that's just a statement of what happened, the question is why did it happen.

 

[Damocles]

That's not an answer, that's just a statement of what happened, the question is why did it happen.

Evasive to my question I see

 

[Chippy_boy]

That's not an answer, that's just a statement of what happened, the question is why did it happen.

I'll answer for him.

In life generally those most angry about something are those most likely to shout about it.

And so it is with the Labour Party. There's a small number of people like you who were upset that hard left political ideas were not being espoused by any of the main parties. They've latched on to Corbyn as the left-wing figurehead. And since the more moderate Labour voters (or indeed voters generally) are not so unhappy with moderate new-Labour thinking, or indeed they are pretty repulsed by what Corbyn is offering, then they have not joined the party in such large numbers.

Therefore the party has been hijacked by the hard left. And in taking an ever more dogmatic and inflexible hard left stance, they become less and less appealing to the moderate majority.

 

[inbetween]

That's not an answer, that's just a statement of what happened, the question is why did it happen.

Clearly Brexit is the hot potato and the elephant in the room.

After Blair/Brown came Cameron and the coalition, no-one really knew what they wanted so the coalition was the result.

Five years later Cameron promised a referendum as opposed to Miliband who promised not to have one and the Conservatives gained a majority. Take note, the Lib Dems and Clegg who supported remain and no referendum were wiped out.

Another year later the Labour leadership changes, we vote for Brexit and the subsequent general election sees Labour gains but arguably the pro-Brexit stance propels the Conservatives to more votes despite their worst election campaign in decades.

It is becoming clear that without at least coming out to support Brexit this Labour in particular does not stand a chance. The problem is that if they do that then they alienate a big chunk of their key vote which is students etc.

If like some want on here Labour campaigned for a vote with a possible intention to remain then they would get absolutely taken to the cleaners by the electorate.

This is why the Labour Brexit policy amounts to nothing but silence. It is so divisive that they just cannot afford to say or do anything on it. Imagine if we had a general election tomorrow, seriously what would the Labour position be on the biggest issue we face??

 

[taleofbluehalves]

Did anyone know when the Tories quote more money than ever spent in education they include the money spent on financing student loans? It’s a disgrace! Meanwhile the spend per pupil has plummeted.

 

[Damocles]

I'm concerned at the lack of memes from the Tory Party.

UKIP have got Count Dankula, Labour have got Momentum, what have the Tories got?

May, Mogg and Boris. They're low energy memes. 19th Century memes. Type of memes your Grandad might show to his mates down at the Legion on a Thursday night.

How can they ever hope to win an electorate over without good memes? Trump memed his way into the White House. Corbyn nearly memed his way into Number Ten. AfD memed their way into the German political scene.

Its a serious problem guys. They've underestimated the power of Pepe memes.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Some of my instincts are definitely right-wing. I believe that capitalism is a force for good. I believe bad people should be punished severely (but humanely) and I believe that wealth inequality is inevitable, and likely to increase, irrespective of what obstacles are placed in its way.

I could never vote Tory, though. Lots of people who follow the party truly appal me. I don’t hate all of them. Some of my closest friends are dyed in the wool Tories. One is a PA for a current Tory MP and the other is going to stand in one of the safest Tory seats in the land in the next ten years. Nailed on. He’ll go a long way. Genuinely love them both, but there’s something about their party that has a darkness that surrounds it. An ugliness.

It sees the worst in people.

 

[urban genie]

I'll answer for him.

In life generally those most angry about something are those most likely to shout about it.

And so it is with the Labour Party. There's a small number of people like you who were upset that hard left political ideas were not being espoused by any of the main parties. They've latched on to Corbyn as the left-wing figurehead. And since the more moderate Labour voters (or indeed voters generally) are not so unhappy with moderate new-Labour thinking, or indeed they are pretty repulsed by what Corbyn is offering, then they have not joined the party in such large numbers.

Therefore the party has been hijacked by the hard left. And in taking an ever more dogmatic and inflexible hard left stance, they become less and less appealing to the moderate majority.

You really have no understanding of the memberships mood post brown and the then ideological act of the con/lib government to impose austerity, even though it was always going to fail.

The economic crash, as with the last major one, changed many peoples outlook and thinking, which has led to a resurgence in shifts both left and right, add brexit to this and a labour membership fed up with the partys direction decided to try something new, 200000 memebers already there didn't suddenly get replaced by, as you call them hard left wingers, this isn't the stepford wives.
A party leader is chosen by members, whether he/she is successful depends on the will of the electorate, but this hard left take over myth is nonsense, the membership, and many long standing members who voted for kinnock, blair and milliband as leader chose the direction the party has took, whether it is successful is down to the wider public, but it wasn't some covert take over of the party but a chosen direction.

The tories to go back on topic have failed this country through mismanagement and weakness firstly from cameron, scared of UKIP pluning the country into the most divisve situation for centuries and then buggering off and then May running scared of her party achieving absolutely fuck all in sorting it out.
All the while serial fuck up a department Grayling has systematically fucked up health, justice and now transport.
The Homelessness shambles is shameful
Transport costs and infrastucture is shamefully fucked up
NHS organisation and funding is shameful
Food poverty existing at all is shameful
Prison services and rehabilition programs are shamefuly disorganised

I could go on.

This government is failing and has failed it's citizens and their is no deny that.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

I'll answer for him.

In life generally those most angry about something are those most likely to shout about it.

And so it is with the Labour Party. There's a small number of people like you who were upset that hard left political ideas were not being espoused by any of the main parties. They've latched on to Corbyn as the left-wing figurehead. And since the more moderate Labour voters (or indeed voters generally) are not so unhappy with moderate new-Labour thinking, or indeed they are pretty repulsed by what Corbyn is offering, then they have not joined the party in such large numbers.

Therefore the party has been hijacked by the hard left. And in taking an ever more dogmatic and inflexible hard left stance, they become less and less appealing to the moderate majority.

Please explain to me ..... what is 'Hard Left' as you put it about wanting

An NHS that is properly funded and free at the point of use?
An education system that is properly funded and provides opportunity for everyone
A social care system that will provide for the elderly and disabled who are unable to look after themselves without taking every penny off them
A transport system that works for everyone, reasonably priced, runs on time and profits are reinvested back into the infrastructure
Utilities such as water , mail, electricity and gas reasonably priced with profits reinvested back into infrastructure or used to reduce prices
A welfare system that provides the disabled who are unable to work a reasonable standard of living and not just a subsistence payment
A social security system that provides a safety net rather than making people walk a tightrope.
A police service that provides security and peace of mind for all.
A prison service that looks to train and rehabilitate its inmates so they don't reoffend
A country that doesn't sell arms to dictatorships so they can suppress weaker poorer nations.


Because if you actually think about it .... isn't this what everyone wants? Does that make us all 'Hard Left' ?

 

[Damocles]

Please explain to me ..... what is 'Hard Left' as you put it about wanting

An NHS that is properly funded and free at the point of use?
An education system that is properly funded and provides opportunity for everyone
A social care system that will provide for the elderly and disabled who are unable to look after themselves without taking every penny off them
A transport system that works for everyone, reasonably priced, runs on time and profits are reinvested back into the infrastructure
Utilities such as water , mail, electricity and gas reasonably priced with profits reinvested back into infrastructure or used to reduce prices
A welfare system that provides the disabled who are unable to work a reasonable standard of living and not just a subsistence payment
A social security system that provides a safety net rather than making people walk a tightrope.
A police service that provides security and peace of mind for all.
A prison service that looks to train and rehabilitate its inmates so they don't reoffend
A country that doesn't sell arms to dictatorships so they can suppress weaker poorer nations.


Because if you actually think about it .... isn't this what everyone wants? Does that make us all 'Hard Left' ?

Literally, almost every person in the country regardless of political party wants most of all of those things.

They're cliches not policies.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Literally, almost every person in the country regardless of political party wants most of all of those things.

They're cliches not policies.

both main parties would broadly support those aims and a lot of them will appear in upcoming manifesto's as policies - I am sure Mayday or whoever is leader at that stage isn't going to refer to their manifesto as just a list of cliche's.

 

[urban genie]

Literally, almost every person in the country regardless of political party wants most of all of those things.

They're cliches not policies.

No they are policies as some liberal and conservative minded people would not want all those things the way as stated in the post.

 

[CityStu]

No they are policies as some liberal and conservative minded people would not want all those things the way as stated in the post.

They would. You saying health and education should be properly funded is very cliche, as your version of properly of properly funded would be very different from someone else's. When you start applying figures and means of funding to those, you have policies.

 

[Scottyboi]

Literally, almost every person in the country regardless of political party wants most of all of those things.

They're cliches not policies.

If the hard left could provide all that then why are they not already in government? They would win by a landslide, the problem is it isn't feasible and like CityStu just said, they only become policies when it comes down to how you fund it all.

As a centrist I want food,shelter and fit women for all vote for me.

 

[inbetween]

Please explain to me ..... what is 'Hard Left' as you put it about wanting

An NHS that is properly funded and free at the point of use?

An education system that is properly funded and provides opportunity for everyone

A social care system that will provide for the elderly and disabled who are unable to look after themselves without taking every penny off them

A transport system that works for everyone, reasonably priced, runs on time and profits are reinvested back into the infrastructure

Utilities such as water , mail, electricity and gas reasonably priced with profits reinvested back into infrastructure or used to reduce prices

A welfare system that provides the disabled who are unable to work a reasonable standard of living and not just a subsistence payment

A social security system that provides a safety net rather than making people walk a tightrope.

A police service that provides security and peace of mind for all.

A prison service that looks to train and rehabilitate its inmates so they don't reoffend

A country that doesn't sell arms to dictatorships so they can suppress weaker poorer nations.

Because if you actually think about it .... isn't this what everyone wants? Does that make us all 'Hard Left' ?

These are social policies but they are cliches in the sense that they contain no detail. If you want all of the above then you must consider how it will be paid for, if you refuse then it has no credibility and can be ignored. The fact is Labour have the objective of moving to the hard left in how they will deliver all of this stuff.

They will move us to a high tax economy where the state takes as much as possible from businesses and your average joe to do as it sees fit. It is essentially imposed socialism so yes it is a hard left way of thinking.

All of this stuff may seem free and great but it isn't, they will take everything that is needed for this stuff from YOUR pocket. This is why most people are highly skeptical of it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

These are social policies but they are cliches in the sense that they contain no detail. If you want all of the above then you must consider how it will be paid for, if you refuse then it has no credibility and can be ignored. The fact is Labour have the objective of moving to the hard left in how they will deliver all of this stuff.

They will move us to a high tax economy where the state takes as much as possible from businesses and your average joe to do as it sees fit. It is essentially imposed socialism so yes it is a hard left way of thinking.

All of this stuff may seem free and great but it isn't, they will take everything that is needed for this stuff from YOUR pocket. This is why most people are highly skeptical of it.

Yes.

But it's slightly more subtle than that. When I go to parts of Europe and I see social infrastructure and hospitals etc which on face value are much better than ours, I could very easily be persuaded into thinking "Ok, I wouldn't mind paying a bit more in taxation in order to provide these sorts of benefits". You pays your money, takes your choice etc.

However, our track record of successfully running a piss up in a brewery is one of dirty glasses, cloudy eggy beer, and rude staff who turn in sick and bugger off half way through.

The worrying reality is just how much of the extra taxes that Labour would take, would actually end up delivering improved services? Versus how much of it would be eaten up with bureaucracy, red tape, pay rises (deserved or not, that's not the question), reduced efficiency? Labour are ideologically in favour of a big public sector where more of the things described in Ifwecouldjust's post are provided by the state. Now we can debate whether the state is better than the private sector or not, but that's a significant difference in the parties' ideologies.

I am told that the public sector work just as hard as people in the private sector, but honestly, I remain unconvinced. Personally I see much higher rates of sick days, reduced customer service, increased holidays and reduced productivity. Capitalism and its relentless pursuit of profits has its issues, but at least it provides an imperative to "get things done", which to me, seems relatively lacking in the public sector.

 

[robbieh]

These are social policies but they are cliches in the sense that they contain no detail. If you want all of the above then you must consider how it will be paid for, if you refuse then it has no credibility and can be ignored. The fact is Labour have the objective of moving to the hard left in how they will deliver all of this stuff.

They will move us to a high tax economy where the state takes as much as possible from businesses and your average joe to do as it sees fit. It is essentially imposed socialism so yes it is a hard left way of thinking.

All of this stuff may seem free and great but it isn't, they will take everything that is needed for this stuff from YOUR pocket. This is why most people are highly skeptical of it.

I was lucky enough to have a fully funded university education in the 80s.
The country is allegedly richer now but this gift is no longer available to the young.

So either tax revenues are less now or the money is being spent elsewhere.

By the way the UK is a not a high income tax economy. Only 16th in Europe.

Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria make up the 5 highest.

 

[Henkeman]

I was lucky enough to have a fully funded university education in the 80s.
The country is allegedly richer now but this gift is no longer available to the young.

So either tax revenues are less now or the money is being spent elsewhere.

By the way the UK is a not a high income tax economy. Only 16th in Europe.

Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria make up the 5 highest.

Well that's because the scale of university entry is vastly higher than it was in the 80s when it was the preserve of a few. The debate around funding higher education is whether it ought to be funded from general taxation - in which cases taxes will have to go up significantly, or whether those go should fund it themselves. What has been abysmally handled is the idea of there being loans, when in effect they're really just a slightly higher rate of tax for university graduates, and should have been done that explicitly that way.

It isn't a matter at all of revenues being less, it's a matter of the number of students being vastly more.

Like anything, it's a choice, but all things do have to be paid for, and income tax alone is no kind of measure. The UK overall sits somewhere around the middle in European terms overall, so absolutely there could be scope for higher taxation if the electorate want it, or lower if they prefer that instead.

What is annoying is the way some try and paint this in moral terms, as though taxing and spending is inherently a matter of good versus evil. It's merely a question of trying to determine the most equitable and effective way of modest redistribution, nothing more.