The Conservative Party

blueinsa said:
Im old enough to have seen quite a few governments come and go and i will say just this, regardless of who is in power the lives of a vast majority of us will not change one bit meaning this Tory party is not as bad as some like to make out and the Labour party under Corbyn is not a magic bullet either.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Not so sure about that. The Thatcher and Blair governments did change a lot, some good, some bad in both cases, but both were rather more than just administrations - which is what we've had recently.

I suspect a Corbyn government would too, simply because it would be so different from anything else. Equally, I can't see that happening - I can't imagine he'd ever command the confidence of the house given half his party hate him. But that's for another thread. In essence, governments can make huge differences, but I'd agree most don't.
 
Henkeman said:
Hmm. Not so sure about that. The Thatcher and Blair governments did change a lot, some good, some bad in both cases, but both were rather more than just administrations - which is what we've had recently.

I suspect a Corbyn government would too, simply because it would be so different from anything else. Equally, I can't see that happening - I can't imagine he'd ever command the confidence of the house given half his party hate him. But that's for another thread. In essence, governments can make huge differences, but I'd agree most don't.
Click to expand...
You need a big majority to do that and most governments don't have one. The two recent ones that did, made bolder changes, as you rightly point out.
 
Henkeman said:
Of course it isn't irrelevant. Every government has to deal with the issues that they are left with by the previous incumbents. You can't on the one justify Labour by blaming the Tories and then blame the Tories while exculpating Labour, it's utter nonsense to do so. And that's why it is partisan.

But I am mildly amused by your post above saying that just because someone is critical of the Tories doesn't mean they're a card carrying Corbynite, well guess what, just because I consider governments of all hues to have been woefully neglectful of those whole subject, and that the current one is partly dealing with the abysmal Labour policy of the start of this century doesn't actually make me a Tory.

Physician, heal thyself.
Click to expand...

The Tories did inherit problems because of Labour but homelessness, at a record low, wasn't one of them. Their subsequent policies (which I have mentioned), some aimed at addressing other issues - some, in my view, purely the product of a nasty ideology, have led to a proliferation of rough sleeping and they deserve blame for it. The situation in 2003 was different because Labour inherited massive levels of homelessness and inherited a lot of nasty policies unlike the Tories in 2010. They're not blameless (and I've never said that) - they took 6 years to sort it out and didn't invest in social housing, but under any non-partisan view of the homelessness situation as a whole, they have a far better record than the Tories. And on a thread about the Conservative Party and in the aftermath of a report stating that 449 people homeless people died last year, it's probably fair that it's mentioned.

Where did I call you a Tory btw?
 
Chippy_boy said:
So presumably you're all in favour of the Tories' introducing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 to help reduce it and you can wholeheartedly support that rather than sniping from the sidelines?

I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

You really don't get it, do you?

You've still not answered my question btw.
 
Fame Monster said:
The Tories did inherit problems because of Labour but homelessness, at a record low, wasn't one of them. Their subsequent policies (which I have mentioned), some aimed at addressing other issues - some, in my view, purely the product of a nasty ideology, have led to a proliferation of rough sleeping and they deserve blame for it. The situation in 2003 was different because Labour inherited massive levels of homelessness and inherited a lot of nasty policies unlike the Tories in 2010. They're not blameless (and I've never said that) - they took 6 years to sort it out and didn't invest in social housing, but under any non-partisan view of the homelessness situation as a whole, they have a far better record than the Tories. And on a thread about the Conservative Party and in the aftermath of a report stating that 449 people homeless people died last year, it's probably fair that it's mentioned.

Where did I call you a Tory btw?
Click to expand...
I do object to your calling right to buy "nasty ideology". You may not agree with it as a policy, but to imply that it is somehow spiteful and nasty to offer people the right to buy the homes they live in? That's crackers.

That would be like me saying Corbyn's nasty offer to waive university tuition fees. I might think it's a wrong policy, but it isn't "nasty".
 
Chippy_boy said:
I do object to your calling right to buy "nasty ideology". You may not agree with it as a policy, but to imply that it is somehow spiteful and nasty to offer people the right to buy the homes they live in? That's crackers.

That would be like me saying Corbyn's nasty offer to waive university tuition fees. I might think it's a wrong policy, but it isn't "nasty".
Click to expand...

I'll ask you again. Do you think it's right that right-to-buy is extended to all landlords in this country if you're so in favour of people having the right to buy the homes that they live in?
 
Fame Monster said:
I'll ask you again. Do you think it's right that right-to-buy is extended to all landlords in this country if you're so in favour of people having the right to buy the homes that they live in?
Click to expand...
I don't know, probably not. But unlike many, I value PERSONAL freedoms and lack of meddling by governments as one of my most dearly held beliefs. So I do distiguish between telling councils what they must do, and telling individuals what they must do. I regard all government, central and especially local, as inherently shite and to be avoided and minimised to the greatest possible extent.

Back to my point, what is "nasty" about offering people the right to buy the homes they live in. You might disagree with it as a policy and the knock on effects, but "nasty" it most certainly is not.
 
Fame Monster said:
The Tories did inherit problems because of Labour but homelessness, at a record low, wasn't one of them. Their subsequent policies (which I have mentioned), some aimed at addressing other issues - some, in my view, purely the product of a nasty ideology, have led to a proliferation of rough sleeping and they deserve blame for it. The situation in 2003 was different because Labour inherited massive levels of homelessness and inherited a lot of nasty policies unlike the Tories in 2010. They're not blameless (and I've never said that) - they took 6 years to sort it out and didn't invest in social housing, but under any non-partisan view of the homelessness situation as a whole, they have a far better record than the Tories. And on a thread about the Conservative Party and in the aftermath of a report stating that 449 people homeless people died last year, it's probably fair that it's mentioned.

Where did I call you a Tory btw?
Click to expand...

You don't even realise you're doing it, do you? Once again, all Labour's failings are apparently because of the Tories before them, all the Tories' failings are their own nothing to do with Labour.

The "nasty" shtick really is a tiresome and misplaced sense of moral superiority.
 
Fame Monster said:
I'll ask you again. Do you think it's right that right-to-buy is extended to all landlords in this country if you're so in favour of people having the right to buy the homes that they live in?
Click to expand...

Er, the government choosing to sell off any property it wishes to is not remotely the same as compelling individuals to sell their personal assets.
 
Henkeman said:
You don't even realise you're doing it, do you? Once again, all Labour's failings are apparently because of the Tories before them, all the Tories' failings are their own nothing to do with Labour.

The "nasty" shtick really is a tiresome and misplaced sense of moral superiority.
Click to expand...

I never laid 'all' the blame at anyone's door. I've said Tories are more to blame than Labour on homelessness. And while correlation doesn't equal causation, the statistics on homelessness/rough sleeping plus any non-partisan understanding of the obvious consequences of particular policies strongly corroborate that.

The nasty schtick comes from a place of compassion for the people living on the street, not from a sense of moral superiority or from any allegiance to any party or party leader for that matter.

@tory_boy, the nasty part of 'right-to-buy' is that those homes are never replaced due to other concomitant nasty policies (already mentioned) therefore when people who need them most request them, they have to wait up to 20 years for the relatively few remaining and sometimes have to resort to living on the streets if they make bad choices or faced with bad circumstances.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I don't know, probably not. But unlike many, I value PERSONAL freedoms and lack of meddling by governments as one of my most dearly held beliefs. So I do distiguish between telling councils what they must do, and telling individuals what they must do. I regard all government, central and especially local, as inherently shite and to be avoided and minimised to the greatest possible extent.
Click to expand...

I replied to your other point above but in relation to this, sometimes people exercise their PERSONAL freedom at the ballot box.
 
Fame Monster said:
I never laid 'all' the blame at anyone's door. I've said Tories are more to blame than Labour on homelessness. And while correlation doesn't equal causation, the statistics on homelessness/rough sleeping plus any non-partisan understanding of the obvious consequences of particular policies strongly corroborate that.

The nasty schtick comes from a place of compassion for the people living on the street, not from a sense of moral superiority or from any allegiance to any party or party leader for that matter.

@tory_boy, the nasty part of 'right-to-buy' is that those homes are never replaced due to other concomitant nasty policies (already mentioned) therefore when people who need them most request them, they have to wait up to 20 years for the relatively few remaining and sometimes have to resort to living on the streets if they make bad choices or faced with bad circumstances.
Click to expand...

Sorry no. You lace all your posts with pejorative judgements about the good guys and the bad guys, and yet weirdly enough, Labour never seem to be the bad guys for you. Something like Right to Buy was massively popular, but you don't just disagree with it, you call it morally wrong by evil Tories. Even when it's pointed out the house building nadir to replace those sold houses came under Labour, you still talk about the nasty Tories.

Now that's fine. You can regard the Tories as nasty if you want, it's no skin off my nose. But it is the politics of the playground.
 
Last edited:
Henkeman said:
Sorry no. You lace all your posts with pejorative judgements about the good guys and the bad guys, and yet weirdly enough, Labour never seem to be the bad guys for you. Something like Right to Buy was massively popular, but you don't just disagree with it, you call it morally wrong by evil Tories. Even when it's pointed out the house building nadir to replace those sold houses came under Labour, you still talk about the nasty Tories.

Now that's fine. You can regard the Tories as evil if you want, it's no skin of my nose. But it is the politics of the playground.
Click to expand...

Ok well we're going round in circles here. Any literate person can read that I've said Labour aren't blameless but my point is that their record on homelessness in 2003 is as relevant to the record low they left the Tories in 2010 as the budgetary surplus they ran in 1998 was relevant to the deficit they left in 2010. The Tories didn't inherit a perfect state of affairs on homelessness (even if it was a record low) but nevertheless, many of their policies are directly to blame for the homelessness crisis the country finds itself in. If you disagree with that or feel that Tory policy has had little bearing on the proliferation of homelessness then that's up to you, but this is the thread on the Conservative Party so people will naturally come on here and criticise them more than Labour or the Lib Dems or Donald Trump.
 
urban genie said:
I refer you to my previous answer, PMQs style
Click to expand...
Intellectual fraud.

You accused various governments of mishandling funds but you didn’t understand the asset class they were buying. So you didn’t have a point. Don’t try and wriggle out of it. Either accept you didn’t understand the risk class of a U.K. gilt (virtually the same as holding cash) or stop replying rather than playing the man rather than the ball.
 
SWP's back said:
Intellectual fraud.

You accused various governments of mishandling funds but you didn’t understand the asset class they were buying. So you didn’t have a point. Don’t try and wriggle out of it. Either accept you didn’t understand the risk class of a U.K. gilt (virtually the same as holding cash) or stop replying rather than playing the man rather than the ball.
Click to expand...


Why not? You do it at times, we all do on here, some just don't admit it.

Anyway as you haven't appreciated my answer, I was on about the 10 year gilts that gideon osbourne pumped loads of NIF money which unusaually returned a negative yield, yes very rare, but considering when he did it around 2007/8 the markets were not stable and so was a rash decission in my opinion.

Chancellors before him have used them yes, because they are low or no risk, in this case they were not, and it is very rare, though I think Germam government ones also saw a negative yield the other year, which again is uncommon.

Sorry if some very rare occasion which is pratically non existant was the example of NIF mismanagement I used, but as I originally said I am trying to get some work done so I can fuck off home, so used the first example I could think of, I will find more when I am next free if you like
 
Last edited:
Can I ask something? And this might be completely naieve, but....

May accuses Corbyn and Labour of "playing politics" above the needs and wishes of the country eg Brexit.

Yet the DUP ate threatening to vote against the upcoming Tory Budget because of their wishes re "red lines" with regards to NI and Brexit.

Why is May and the Tories not accusing them of the same thing? Or is it just OK if it means holding onto power?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top