[Closed] anyone on here voting tory. why?

They then took us to a needless war

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that voted in by people of all.parties and supports by the main ones? Would it then not hve happened the same way with Tories in power?

IIRC more labour MP's voted against it than Tories and it opnly passed due to conservative support

I don't consider myself to be Tory by any means

Hmm, reikk v ONS and IFS. Which is best placed to answer the question!

I will be off to bed shortly, but, please, for the sake of all that is good in the world, do not vote conservative tomorrow.

Yes - Ed Miliband isn't a viable leader

[quote=Junkyard ]IIRC more labour MP's voted against it than Tories

Is that similar to the way rich people pay more VAT? 😉

That is pretty progressive thinking there

Dont get me wrong Blair is a **** of the highest order and the decision shames the labour party but it could not have been passed without Tory support so they share the blame though he was clearly the ring leader

Junkyard just out of interest, why are you such an ardent Labour fanboi?

Junkyard - lazarus

Dont get me wrong Blair is a **** of the highest order

robowns - Member

Junkyard just out of interest, why are you such an ardent Labour fanboi?

Brilliant !

[quote=Junkyard ]it could not have been passed without Tory support so they share the blame though he was clearly the ring leader

We're going way OT here, but the question is, what did those supporting the war base their decision to support the war on? It's difficult to outright condemn people on either side who were lied to.

The tories did not require the dossier [ any more than Blair did] IMHO as they were pretty keen to invade. Of course Blair and labour bear the greatest burden [ they lied and they should face charges IMHO] but lets not pretend they acted alone or it was just them that wanted war [ or that it would have been different if it was a tory govt either].

Either way it was shameful the way the elected representatives of this country , led by the govt of the day, ignored the clear wishes of the people and entered a war on such dubious grounds.

Labour fan boy , dont be silly I am way more left wing that that rabble

It's difficult to outright condemn people on either side who were lied to.

Like hell it is. Just like everyone else they would have heard Robin Cook's speech to Parliament. As Foreign Secretary Robin Cook would have been as well-informed as Blair. Robin Cook made it clear that Iraq was going to be attacked because it was considered after years of crippling sanctions to be [u]weak[/u], not because it was a threat.

Did all those Tory MPs who enthusiastically voted in favour of war really believe that Tony Blair would be daft enough to want to attack a country with weapons of mass destruction?

Or that Tony Blair was so daft as to want to start a war with a country which he claimed could launch biological/chemical weapons onto targets as far as Cyprus within 45 minutes of the war starting?

And be in such a hurry to do it that he wouldn't even wait for Hans Blick and his team of UN inspectors to finish their inspections telling them to get out quick because the bombing was going to start.

If Tony Blair had believed what he was saying then he was potentially risking the deaths of tens of thousands British lives by attacking Iraq. Not a very good vote winner.

It was clear from the start that the British government was fully convinced that Iraq had no usable weapons of mass destruction, or that they could be a threat.

The Tory MPs, just like the Labour MPs, knew that Iraq was weak and posed no threat when they voted in favour of attacking it.

There is always the potential that the invasion of Iraq was part of a pre-conceived longer term strategy:

North Merseyside (Bootle Ward I believe) here & everyone will be voting labour that I know, Obviously Conservative supporters are few & far between here anyway.

I often have to remind myself a lot of my grumbles are actually with society & not a political party...

Funny some of the issues people consider important though, the immigration red herring, Iraq War, really? international perseption of the party leader, based on the madness of newspaper propaganda blah blah...

Old people freezing to Death, Kids below the Poverty line, Housing, Education, Health care, jobs, these matter most to me for the good of the country, none actually effect me currently, but they are the everyday real world issues that shouldn't even be up for discussion in my eyes!

Funny some of the issues people consider important though, the immigration red herring, Iraq War, really?

No not really. That's why Tony Blair was able to very comfortably win a general election after the Iraq War had been exposed as a disaster based on lies.

It obviously wasn't very important.

Edit - misread your reply...

Bedtime for me

My point was Iraq being important when choosing now, only a fool would believe they went all in it together.

My point was Iraq being important when choosing now

No of course not, but Tory supporters still bang on about it. They seem to think that the Tory Party is somehow exonerated from blame.

IIRC more labour MP's voted against it than Tories and it opnly passed due to conservative support

@molgrips - thanks for the post on government contracts and I understand and agree with all except the "Tory dogma" bit, I don't think any government would think its a good idea to have government IT done inhouse.

JY I'll read the link you posted that stuff particularly interests me. Without wishing to incur your wrath ( 😉 ) we have a far more progressive VAT regime than does the EU as we have no VAT on food, childrens clothes and low rates on utilities. There's lots of politics in how the figures are interpreted when speaking of regressive taxes and not including benefits/tax credits is a gaping flaw (a deliberate one I would say).

Going into Iraq was inevitable, the whole "lies" rationale thing is imply irrelevant. The operation was mishandled in that not enough troops went in and we left too soon, largely IMO due to public pressure.

Yes, but not money included in the figures is financed by PFI as you have replaced financial gearing with operational gearing.

Most school builds/ refurbishments weren't paid for by PFI.

No, but like he said, they're an investment that (if run well) will pay back in the long term

Not within the lifetime of a government, it won't. Much like the bailout.

Going into Iraq was inevitable, the whole "lies" rationale thing is imply irrelevant.

You think it's irrelevant that our government made stuff up to justify a war? Sheesh.

I don't think any government would think its a good idea to have government IT done inhouse.

Outsourcing is Tory dogma no? Private sector good, public bad?

There's in-house, and there's in-house. Simply having the current agencies recruit IT staff wouldn't be good. It needs proper reorganisation, because what it really needs is central control and expertise not a bunch of contractors looking for a big profit.

Most school builds/ refurbishments weren't paid for by PFI.

According to Wiki, 55.5% of the Building Schools for the Future programme was financed by PFI so a pretty bit chunk was.

Outsourcing is Tory dogma no? Private sector good, public bad?

If you read the speech I linked to earlier the Tory approach is big projects big providers bad, small projects small provider good

Some projects are inherently big though..

Just looked at our local (accidental) Tory MP's voting record. He tried to bring in private members bills to reinstate the death penalty, and conscription, voted against gay marriage,for the bedroom tax, and further cuts to disabled benefits, is rabidly anti-Europe, and is in the bookies top 5 of Tory's likely to defect to UKIP.

But to me, he's the real face of the Tory party, behind Dave's rapidly crumbling facade. What a lovely man. I'm very much looking forward to seeing him booted into electoral oblivion later today.

Wonder how many people will be voting Tory because of the vast crossover between politics and the media

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9227491/David-Camerons-five-secret-meetings-with-Rupert-Murdoch.html ]David Cameron's five secret meetings with Rupert Murdoch[/url]

[img] [/img]

Going into Iraq was inevitable, the whole "lies" rationale thing is imply irrelevant. The operation was mishandled in that not enough troops went in and we left too soon, largely IMO due to public pressure.

we left too soon, largely IMO due to public pressure.

* In the UK, I mean. Obviously "we" didn't leave too much democracy behind in Iraq, just sectarian death squads and an ethnically divided country.

Yeah, democracy is pretty flawed as a concept in many ways...

Wonder how many people will be voting Tory because of the vast crossover between politics and the media

And how many will recall that Tony Blair went to Rupert and Wendi's wedding, is godfather to their most recent child, frequently holidayed with them and according to the Economist reportedly had a "special relationship" over and above that?

Everyone can recall Blair's relationship with Murdoch, Blair was a lapdog to the right wing press, everyone knows it, what's your point?

This is how much of a nasty piece of work my MP is. Clearly supports war, the rich, pissing money up the wall and privatisation. Doesn't like the poor, the vulnerable, the disabled, opportunities, the NHS or the climate. Tories are delightful.

Voted strongly for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas

Voted very strongly for the Iraq war

Voted moderately for replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system

Voted strongly for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")

Voted very strongly against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices

Voted very strongly against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

Voted very strongly for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support

Voted strongly for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

Voted strongly against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed

Voted strongly for increasing the rate of VAT

Voted very strongly against increasing the tax rate applied to income over £150,000

Voted strongly against a banker’s bonus tax

Voted strongly against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)

Voted strongly for reducing the rate of corporation tax

Voted very strongly against restricting the provision of services to private patients by the NHS

Voted very strongly for raising England’s undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000 per year

Voted very strongly for ending financial support for some 16-19 year olds in training and further education

Voted strongly against a more proportional system for electing MPs

Voted moderately for a stricter asylum system

Voted very strongly for the introduction of elected Police and Crime Commissioners

Voted very strongly against slowing the rise in rail fares

Voted very strongly for selling England’s state owned forests

Voted very strongly for capping civil service redundancy payments

Voted very strongly for the privatisation of Royal Mail

Voted a mixture of for and against financial incentives for low carbon emission electricity generation methods

Voted strongly for restricting the scope of legal aid

Voted moderately for culling badgers to tackle bovine tuberculosis

Voted very strongly against restrictions on fees charged to tenants by letting agents

If any of the Tories can adequately explain why five of the things he voted for are a good idea and why five of things he voted against are a bad idea I will eat Nick Clegg.

This is how much of a nasty piece of work my MP is. Clearly supports war, the rich, pissing money up the wall and privatisation. Doesn't like the poor, the vulnerable, the disabled, opportunities, the NHS or the climate. Tories are delightful.

Do you live in the Chilterns, and are 'represented' by David Gawke, MunroB?

Wonder how many people will be voting Tory because of the vast crossover between politics and the media

I am

To be fair, the tories don't have a monopoly on being horrible people. Eric Joyce (Labour stalwart) is a vicious thug that has assaulted people and Cyril Smith was allegedly a serious paedophile.

Mind you, my local MP appears to have tried to break up the NHS, but that may not have been entirely his own idea.

A tory MP punching someone

[img] [/img]

@munro - a few comments. I didn't manage all the list as it was taking ages to edit the comment

[b]Difficult decisions made in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7 and the rise of Al-Queda to address serious threat to regional stability
[/b]

Voted strongly for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war

[b]Retaining our nuclear deterrent is an important element of our national security policy and our international commitments
[/b]

Voted moderately for replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system

[b]Difficult decisions made to reduce spending and try and bring the deficit under control
[/b]

Voted strongly for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")

Voted very strongly against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices

Voted very strongly against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

Voted very strongly for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support

Voted strongly for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

Voted strongly against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed

Voted very strongly for ending financial support for some 16-19 year olds in training and further education

Voted very strongly for raising England’s undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000 per year

Voted strongly for restricting the scope of legal aid

[b]Because it's a very effective tax raising large amounts and is paid by visitors to the UK. At 20% our rate of VAT is now consistent with other EU countries instead of being lower.
[/b]
Voted strongly for increasing the rate of VAT

[b]Because both are counterproductive as they lead to changes in behaviour and less revenue actually collected
[/b]
Voted very strongly against increasing the tax rate applied to income over £150,000

Voted strongly against a banker’s bonus tax

[b]We already have property taxes in the form of stamp duty which where increased materially instead
[/b]
Voted strongly against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)

[b]To encourage businesses to relocate to the UK
[/b]
Voted strongly for reducing the rate of corporation tax

Voted very strongly against restricting the provision of services to private patients by the NHS

[b]
Not in he interests of Labour or Tories to vote for this, we had a referendum on AV[/b]
Voted strongly against a more proportional system for electing MPs

[b]Asylum system needs reforming further, too much abuse by economic migrants at the expense of legitamte claiments. Hugely expensive currently.
[/b]
Voted moderately for a stricter asylum system

Voted very strongly for the introduction of elected Police and Crime Commissioners

Voted very strongly against slowing the rise in rail fares

Voted very strongly for selling England’s state owned forests

[b]Private sector companies have caps, also in recent times private sector redundancy packages have been cut back substantially. Redundancy payments out of control at the BBC
[/b]
Voted very strongly for capping civil service redundancy payments

Good job you didn't waste much more time. I did stipulate "adequately", of which only the stamp duty answer and the corporation tax one are.

munrobiker - Member
This is how much of a nasty piece of work my MP

Is there a website you ca get those stats? Would like to check out my candidates

A tory MP punching someone

I think most people took the view that he had it coming, for the terrible haircut if nothing else.

mudmuncher- http://www.theyworkforyou.com/user/changepc/

[i]Everyone can recall Blair's relationship with Murdoch, Blair was a lapdog to the right wing press, everyone knows it[/i]

No they don't!

They always say a picture tells a thousand words...

[img] [/img]

whats that in her mouth? 😯

arggh....you've edited it!

That said, none of this was on Blairs watch:

[img] [/img]

and all of the above was due to the fact that Labour spent all the effing money!

Hmm, nothing to do with the Bankers then... plenty of scapegoats in the political landscape.

I don't hold much faith in any of the main parties (though on an individual level there are several good MPs) but the same tired bullcrap of blaming Labour for a global financial crisis that benefited those who brought it about doesn't wash

Will you also blame the Royal Mail sell off on Labour?

and all of the above was due to the fact that Labour spent all the effing money!

Could've borrowed more and got us out this mess (that the banker's are the main culprit of, or are Labour to blame for the recessions in all the other countries too?), instead of using the opportunity as a cover-up for passing nasty policies off as austerity, such as the "back to work" scheme for people unable to work, scrapping Remploy and shafting the NHS.

and all of the above was due to the fact that Labour spent all the effing money!

Well, they could've let the banks fail instead. Do you think that would have been a good idea?

You might also recall Osborne committing himself to Labour's spending plans...

[i]Hmm, nothing to do with the Bankers then... plenty of scapegoats in the political landscape.[/i]

Doesn't matter....Labour were in power and had the responsibility for our Country's success or failure. Sadly it was the latter!

Will you also blame the Royal Mail sell off on Labour?

[i]nasty policies[/i]

FFS....there were no options but nasty policies........how TF do you get out of deep deep shit by spending more money?

There is no magic wand...you should try it with your family budget!

[i]Will you also blame the Royal Mail sell off on Labour?[/i]

You're tip toeing around the simple facts here with petty snipes....its not difficult you know?

how TF do you get out of deep deep shit by spending more money?

Isn't it obvious? It's called investment.. perhaps you're not qualified to make economic judgements..?

Everyone can recall Blair's relationship with Murdoch, Blair was a lapdog to the right wing press, everyone knows it

Make friends with your enemies.. shrewd move no?

Doesn't matter....Labour were in power and had the responsibility for our Country's success or failure. Sadly it was the latter!

They took decisive action to avert a catastrophe caused by forces largely outside of their control, and left office with a growing economy. The Tories then screwed it up, realised that austerity wasn't working, and reverted back to Labour's strategy.

Getting a loan for my family budget will not increase my family's income. Getting a loan for the nation to embark on public projects, increase employment and generally stimulate things increases tax income, reduces welfare payments and makes everyone happy. Austerity simply makes things rubbish for everyone except the very rich.

[i]Isn't it obvious? It's called investment.. perhaps you're not qualified to make economic judgements..?[/i]

Priceless! What a fool.

FFS....there were no options but nasty policies........how TF do you get out of deep deep shit by spending more money?

Seems the UK is not run like a household budget, but keep believing that if you like... 🙄

...in the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed [b]£37.7bn[/b], of which [b]£28.3bn was invested in big projects[/b] (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit). Conversely, in 2013, the [b]Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn[/b], with just [b]£23.7bn invested[/b]. [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653 ]UK debt and deficit[/url]

[i]Getting a loan for my family budget will not increase my family's income.[/i]

Yes it will....you could get a buy to let, pay less repayments than the rental income etc.

However it would be subject to market conditions and you would have no safety net in case things went tits up.

Yes it will....you could get a buy to let, pay less repayments than the rental income etc.

You're describing investment. Did you mean to prove munrobiker's point?

@munro - I must try harder eh ?

@jj a few notes on your post;

one million visits to foodbanks, eg 500,000 went twice, about 50,000 went 3 times or more. Numbers not that different to period 2005-10 ?

zero hours contracts, not a fan myself but did you see the programm on JJ SPorts with all the Polish workers on zero hour contracts. Classic case of immigrants being abused and undercutting UK workers in terms of wages and security of employment

Bankers bonuses bring in £8bn in taxes each year, bonuses subject to limits imposed by the EU nothing the UK can do about it

Of course debt is higher than under Labour trying to correct the mess they left is very difficult. it took Labour 5 years to ramp to deficit upto £90bn you can't reverse that over 5 years in a recessionary environment

bedroom tax - wrong solution to the real problem of too many welfare claiments living in oversized properties versus their needs.

3.6m disabled people, 6% of our population are disabled, wow.

£3bn tax cut for top 1%, HMRC figures said £100m

Re bankers the primary cause of the financial crises where the sub-prime lenders in California, most of those entities are not banks by the way. What do you propose we do about them ? HBOS and Northern Rock made a good go at poor lending too, two of the worst payers amongst large scale financial services firms btw.

..in the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit). Conversely, in 2013, the Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested. UK debt and deficit

A large portion of the deficit is money borrowed every year to pay wages, benefits, pensions just like they do in Greece.

@ratnips indeed, the Tories inherited a [s]mess[/s]messy but recovering economy which [s]is still in place 5 years later despite [/s]went into reverse because of their cuts. it shows the [s]scale of the inherited spending mess [/s]folly of ideology

A large portion of the deficit is money borrowed every year to pay wages, benefits, pensions just like they do in Greece.

People spend money on food, just like they do in Greece.
People breathe in and out, just like they do in Greece.

..in the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit). Conversely, in 2013, the Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested. UK debt and deficit

The way those figures are presented is biased so you would have to wonder about the accuracy. They are not intended to be purely factual but instead guide the opinion of the reader. Percentages would probably be a better way of displaying the information*. To use absolute values when comparing current spend to an historic one is never going to be accurate since no account is taken of inflation and the real value the numbers represent.

As this thread has shown, all previous governments have done good and bad things and you can cherry pick the bits you like to make your point.

*Best way would be a pie chart, obviously.

[b]how TF do you get out of deep deep shit by spending more money?[/b]

Isn't it obvious? It's called investment.. perhaps you're not qualified to make economic judgements..?

FFS this is ridiculous. Labour created literally hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs that weren't there 5 years before and then granted massive year on year pay rises. The country was no more successful on education, crime or healthcare than before but £640Bn was borrowed to do this.

Take GPs as an example. Their pay doubled and their working hours dropped. Their incomes rose so much that many started to work reduced hours and now many are retiring early and despite 10 years less service are on track to get pensions 50% higher than they would otherwise have been - our current "GP crisis" is precisely due to the "investment" that was made 12 years ago and the decisions in 2009 to reduce training places for medics.

An investment is something that normally gives you a net positive return. Paying more to receive the same thing or less is absolute madness and the fact people can't see it for what it really is is pretty shocking. The fact that borrowing has continued to rise under the current government is no different to a wonga loan - the borrowing was never affordable and throw in a bit of world crisis and uptick in unemployment and the whole lot just expands exponentially.

[i]FFS this is ridiculous.[/i]

Save your breath just5mins....there are none so blind than those who will not see!

An investment is something that normally gives you a net positive return.

I was talking in general principles - the question was 'how does spending get you out of debt?' and I answered it. It can work very well - at the time, it was often commented that no country has ever cut its way out of a deficit.

The investments may not have been made well in this case but that is a different issue, on which I am not going to comment.

In other words, they aimed for something that could well have worked, but cocked it up. Like taking a shot from the edge of the area. If you're Lionel Messi, it's a reasonable thing to try.

An investment is something that normally gives you a net positive return

Is it hell. Investments can pay off or they can bomb. How to invest is a whole industry.

If the deficit hadn't been so large, or ideally a surplus, then any government could have borrowed/spent more to see the country out of recession without making spending cuts. However that wasn't the situation.

I have some sympathy with @just5's post on Doctors. I have a few friends who are GPs and they took advantage of pay rises to work fewer hours and definitely not weekends. Also as their pensions are related to final salary they can retire earlier and on higher pensions following the pay rises. Law of unintended consequences.

Labour created literally hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs that weren't there 5 years before and then granted massive year on year pay rises. The country was no more successful on education, crime or healthcare than before but £640Bn was borrowed to do this.

Take GPs as an example. Their pay doubled and their working hours dropped.

Most GPs are not public sector employees.

Spending is not the same as investment

The re-writing of the crisis is great! #teflon

True, THM, but it's quite complex to figure out where all the spent money goes and what effects it will ultimately have.

it was often commented that no country has ever cut its way out of a deficit

Incorrectly, Canada did in the 1990s with 20% per annum spending cuts, balanced the budget in three years.

EDIT:

Spending is not the same as investment

It is if you are Gordon Brown's speechwriter.

Incorrectly, Canada did in the 1990s with 20% per annum spending cuts, balanced the budget in three years.

True enough - it does appear to be the one exception to the rule.

The GP thing is nuts, they earn so much now that at my local surgery not one single GP works a full week. So of course we are short of GPs if they are all going part time. Also means the UK will need to train a third to a half more GPs than previously for the same level of cover. That is not money well spent.

Labour screwed the risk and reward balance between the public and private sectors. You can now in the public sector earn more over a life time, retire earlier and have greater stability. What's the incentive to work in the private sector and take risks?

Just a thought. If organisations were not allowed to profit from the NHS, would the big drug companies (Astra Zeneca etc) sell drugs to the NHS?

Labour screwed the risk and reward balance between the public and private sectors. You can now in the public sector earn more over a life time, retire earlier and have greater stability. What's the incentive to work in the private sector and take risks?

I'll repeat it again: GPs are not in the public sector.