Non-Tory voters, what would it take for you to vote Tory?

RedTillI'mDead said:
Another short sighted voter!

I'll explain again. Labour spent too much on public services when they should have been reducing the government debt. Crash happened and Labour's lack of saving and investment resulted in a much higher debt than would otherwise be the case.

This debt comes with interest payments. Interest payments mean less money available to spend on public services.

Conservatives are thus forced to reduce spend to reduce this interest so that more people can be saved in the future.

Better one casualty today than 10 tomorrow!

So show all the stories you want, but if Labour hadn't got us into so much debt there may not have had to be this level of cuts and that guy might have been saved.

Add to the fact Labour love hand outs meaning less people working, less people paying taxes and higher government spend that can't go on saving lives.

However you look at it Labour lack basic economic sense.
Click to expand...
And until that happens people need to die with no food in their stomachs and unable to keep their insulin cool. Short sighted cnuts.

Oh and you can genuinely go feck yourself for the shit in bold. I change my answer to the title of the thread to 'being this bellend'
 
Last edited:
Ramshock said:
Him too. So Randall who is your right wing flavour in Ireland right now?
Click to expand...


Labelling all people who vote conservative as xenophobes or less intelligent unless they are very wealthy is incredibly narrow minded and says more about you than those who choose to


I am dead centre as I have said many times before. So I like to think I have far more balanced views than the likes of yourself who seems to refuse to look at any middle ground when it comes to this.
 
Randall Flagg said:
Labelling all people who vote conservative as xenophobes or less intelligent unless they are very wealthy is incredibly narrow minded and says more about you than those who choose to


I am dead centre as I have said many times before. So I like to think I have far more balanced views than the likes of yourself who seems to refuse to look at any middle ground when it comes to this.
Click to expand...

To be honest with you it was tongue in cheek. Im just sick of politicians in general.
 
rcoobc said:
Song as old as time. "If you vote Tories they will cut services". "If you vote Labour they will raise taxes!"
Click to expand...

Tories are pretty good at raising taxes as well. The last 4 election victories they have won, if you include the coalition in 2010, have come with a manifesto promising no tax rises, three of them mentioning no VAT rise specifically. In three of those occasions VAT went up within a year.

In 2010 it was within 6 weeks, after specifically promising not to raise VAT. This time, they are not even bothering with the pretense, they won;t guarantee no VAT rises, because it will be 22.5% by the end of June of they win. VAT is a regressive tax with a disproportionate effect on the poorest, which is exactly why they love it.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Tories are pretty good at raising taxes as well. The last 4 election victories they have won, if you include the coalition in 2010, have come with a manifesto promising no tax rises, three of them mentioning no VAT rise specifically. In three of those occasions VAT went up within a year.

In 2010 it was within 6 weeks, after specifically promising not to raise VAT. This time, they are not even bothering with the pretense, they won;t guarantee no VAT rises, because it will be 22.5% by the end of June of they win. VAT is a regressive tax with a disproportionate effect on the poorest, which is exactly why they love it.
Click to expand...
This is often said, but how exactly is it true?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but

1) Gas and Electricity has the lowest rate allowed by the EU (5%)
2) Water is zero rated
3) Basic foods, including milk, tea, coffee, meat, eggs, canned & frozen food, cereals, chilled ready meals, convenience foods, etc, are zero rated
4) Children's clothes are 0% rated.
5) Tampons have the lowest rate allowed by the EU (5%)
6) Books are zero rated

I think I spend an absurdly small amount of money on VAT per year. Most video games I buy are second hand. I'm absurdly boring, so I don't do much.

Compare that to what someone rich may spend their money on:

New Cars - 20%
Restaurant food - 20%
Huge televisions and other equipment - 20%

So how is it regressive? Obviously the main one might be fuel... hard to know what to do with that.
 
Last edited:
Nogbadthebad said:
The best answer I have seen is from this guy

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/
Click to expand...
Wait...this bbc article is almost identical, and wtitten on the same day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507

Must have been a collaboration.

Anyway. The thing is, VAT isnt as progressive as income tax, obviously, but its much more progressive than national insurance (except for the ultra poor) and also much more progressive that council tax. Can you imagine something less progressive than council tax? Well, probably. But its still crazily regressive.

VAT is targets luxury. Ive often thought that it should rise for higher cost items (so the first £1k is charged at 20%, anything after is charged at 30%) which would make it much more progressive. But still, it doesnt attack the poor deliberately.

Ultimately taxing anything except income opens uo arguments of regressive taxation
 
Dobba said:
And until that happens people need to die with no food in their stomachs and unable to keep their insulin cool. Short sighted cnuts.

Oh and you can genuinely go feck yourself for the shit in bold. I change my answer to the title of the thread to 'being this bellend'
Click to expand...

Ok so I'm a bellend because the guy dying today is worth ten of tomorrows lives? Yup makes sense.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Another short sighted voter!

I'll explain again. Labour spent too much on public services when they should have been reducing the government debt. Crash happened and Labour's lack of saving and investment resulted in a much higher debt than would otherwise be the case.

This debt comes with interest payments. Interest payments mean less money available to spend on public services.

Conservatives are thus forced to reduce spend to reduce this interest so that more people can be saved in the future.

Better one casualty today than 10 tomorrow!

So show all the stories you want, but if Labour hadn't got us into so much debt there may not have had to be this level of cuts and that guy might have been saved.

Add to the fact Labour love hand outs meaning less people working, less people paying taxes and higher government spend that can't go on saving lives.

However you look at it Labour lack basic economic sense.
Click to expand...

This depends on the idea that the Tories are actually economically competent, though. Until the crash happened Osborne was planning to match Brown's spending (IIRC), and even in power there's an argument the Tories haven't done all that well: unemployment has generally been reduced, but that doesn't account for zero hour contracts and other low-paying jobs etc.

Similarly, Osborne wanted to enshrine it into law that a government would have to work under a budget surplus - this was condemned by most credible economical advisers and seen to be something that was a poor move from the Tories designed only to improve their own popularity.

And again - I don't see how Brexit can be seen as the outcome of an economically competent party. Labour would've been absolutely slaughtered for poor economic management had the pound fallen under them the way it did under the Tories.
 
Cheesy said:
This depends on the idea that the Tories are actually economically competent, though. Until the crash happened Osborne was planning to match Brown's spending (IIRC), and even in power there's an argument the Tories haven't done all that well: unemployment has generally been reduced, but that doesn't account for zero hour contracts and other low-paying jobs etc.

Similarly, Osborne wanted to enshrine it into law that a government would have to work under a budget surplus - this was condemned by most credible economical advisers and seen to be something that was a poor move from the Tories designed only to improve their own popularity.

And again - I don't see how Brexit can be seen as the outcome of an economically competent party. Labour would've been absolutely slaughtered for poor economic management had the pound fallen under them the way it did under the Tories.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the plays required for a successful negotiation. Labour would have shit the bed. There is no "soft brexit" option. It's not on the cards. Remember, May wanted to remain. So two sides to this, one she is following the will of the people, albeit a bunch or idiots who voted leave and secondly if we are exiting in any form it has to he "hard" to give any chance of a successful outcome.

A soft brexit would be no brexit and a failure to deliver the mandate of the brexit vote.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
I think you underestimate the plays required for a successful negotiation. Labour would have shit the bed. There is no "soft brexit" option. It's not on the cards. Remember, May wanted to remain. So two sides to this, one she is following the will of the people, albeit a bunch or idiots who voted leave and secondly if we are exiting in any form it has to he "hard" to give any chance of a successful outcome.

A soft brexit would be no brexit and a failure to deliver the mandate of the brexit vote.
Click to expand...
How could anyone have shat the bed more than David Cameron? Genuine question.

He couldn't even get them to agree, only to pay child benefit to kids in the UK... Something France already has!
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
I think you underestimate the plays required for a successful negotiation. Labour would have shit the bed. There is no "soft brexit" option. It's not on the cards. Remember, May wanted to remain. So two sides to this, one she is following the will of the people, albeit a bunch or idiots who voted leave and secondly if we are exiting in any form it has to he "hard" to give any chance of a successful outcome.

A soft brexit would be no brexit and a failure to deliver the mandate of the brexit vote.
Click to expand...
Of course it would. Are Norway in or out of the EU?
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
I think you underestimate the plays required for a successful negotiation. Labour would have shit the bed. There is no "soft brexit" option. It's not on the cards. Remember, May wanted to remain. So two sides to this, one she is following the will of the people, albeit a bunch or idiots who voted leave and secondly if we are exiting in any form it has to he "hard" to give any chance of a successful outcome.

A soft brexit would be no brexit and a failure to deliver the mandate of the brexit vote.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would. It may be one that unsatisfactory for a lot of people, however the vote was simply to leave the EU - nothing on the ballot paper denoted how this should be done. Any feeling that a soft Brexit isn't a proper Brexit is merely personal opinion.

And again, what does Labour shitting the bed mean? I have little faith in them as a party but I've yet to be given actual, non-platitude reasons as to why their negotiation of Brexit would be any worse than that of the Tories.

May wanted to remain publicly; Cameron called her out for not doing enough, and since Brexit she's quite happily taken the mantle of standing up for the 52%. She's an opportunist.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
I think you underestimate the plays required for a successful negotiation. Labour would have shit the bed. There is no "soft brexit" option. It's not on the cards. Remember, May wanted to remain. So two sides to this, one she is following the will of the people, albeit a bunch or idiots who voted leave and secondly if we are exiting in any form it has to he "hard" to give any chance of a successful outcome.

A soft brexit would be no brexit and a failure to deliver the mandate of the brexit vote.
Click to expand...
Ubik said:
Of course it would. Are Norway in or out of the EU?
Click to expand...
My ten ways soft brexit would still be brexit

1) We wouldn't have any MEPs
2) We would be able to negotiate our own trade deals (let's get the commonwealth back together!)
3) We would only have to apply 9% of EU Law as per Dan Hannan
Let’s look at the figures. Using the EFTA Secretariat’s official statistics, a study found that, between 2000 and 2013, Norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period, the EU itself adopted 52,183 legal instruments. That’s not 75 per cent; it’s nine per cent.

Iceland, like Norway, is a member of the European Economic Area. Last week, in reply to a parliamentary question, it found that, between 1994 and 2014, it had adopted 6,326 of 62,809 EU legal acts – ten per cent. http://www.conservativehome.com/the...er-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html
Click to expand...
4) Our EU budget contribution would likely plummet.
Norway’s payments linked to its relationship with the EU are around two thirds of what the UK pays per head of population, before money comes back. Comparing payments after money comes back is difficult, but seems to narrow the gap still further. https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-eu-payments/
Click to expand...
5) We could bring back the blue passport (I prefer the EU red though).
6) We could cut immigration with the tools at hand. (UK is one of the worst in Europe for using the tools given to cut immigration)
7) We could get back our agriculture policy (no more set-aside or CAP)
8) We could get back our fishing rights
9) No EU stars on car number plates (not that we usually have them anyway)
10) Can choose to de-rate sanitary products (I think)

Seems pretty brexity to me.
 
Last edited:
An increase in wealth and selfishness.

Seems to happen to a lot, with age, so you never know.
 
rcoobc said:
@sammsky1 :lol:

But to be fair horsechoker, they've increased the personal allowance to £11.5k from £6k when they took charge.

If a couple each had a £12k a year job, they would earn an extra £2300 a year now than they did back in 2009. Over the last 7 years, the Tories would have saved them a total of over £9k (hmm someone check my maths).

Obviously some of that would have happened anyway
Click to expand...

Increased VAT to 20%, insurance tax up to 12.5%, surpressed tax credit increases, give a little, take a lot
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Another short sighted voter!

I'll explain again. Labour spent too much on public services when they should have been reducing the government debt. Crash happened and Labour's lack of saving and investment resulted in a much higher debt than would otherwise be the case.

This debt comes with interest payments. Interest payments mean less money available to spend on public services.

Conservatives are thus forced to reduce spend to reduce this interest so that more people can be saved in the future.

Better one casualty today than 10 tomorrow!

So show all the stories you want, but if Labour hadn't got us into so much debt there may not have had to be this level of cuts and that guy might have been saved.

Add to the fact Labour love hand outs meaning less people working, less people paying taxes and higher government spend that can't go on saving lives.

However you look at it Labour lack basic economic sense.
Click to expand...

This may or may not be true, but as the Tories promised to match Labour spending in three successive elections the two cannot be differentiated.
Even after the crash both parties had identical spending plans for the following election, which the Tories made slightly more austere after winning, rightly or wrongly.
 
Mozza said:
Increased VAT to 20%, insurance tax up to 12.5%, surpressed tax credit increases, give a little, take a lot
Click to expand...
Indeed. But I don't really care about VAT too much, whilst all the "basic" items are zero rated or 5%.

Insurance premiums is an interesting one. Never thought about how much that costs me.
 
I've voted for them in the past, although in seats where they didn't have a chance of winning. Today? I wouldn't vote for them if I was on fire and they were offering free piss with every vote.
 
Kentonio said:
I've voted for them in the past, although in seats where they didn't have a chance of winning. Today? I wouldn't vote for them if I was on fire and they were offering free piss with every vote.
Click to expand...
Why, why would that be a good thing?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
An increase in wealth and selfishness.

Seems to happen to a lot, with age, so you never know.
Click to expand...
It's really not selfish and nobody should think that way

If you have a normal job of 30-50k per year and a family to support, and the conservatives were suggesting anything that would mean you would take home a bit more, it's at least something anyone should give very careful consideration
 
Randall Flagg said:
It's really not selfish and nobody should think that way

If you have a normal job of 30-50k per year and a family to support, and the conservatives were suggesting anything that would mean you would take home a bit more, it's at least something anyone should give very careful consideration
Click to expand...
I think prioritising your family's need for a new shower/Playstation/sofa above the needs of those who are struggling far more than you, is selfish. I don't find it evil. I have plenty of friends who are on the verge of voting Tory but not quite there (I'm 27, so similarly aged friends are still battling with it) and I don't hate them. Just disagree with them.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I think prioritising your family's need for a new shower/Playstation/sofa above the needs of those who are struggling far more than you, is selfish. I don't find it evil. I have plenty of friends who are on the verge of voting Tory but not quite there (I'm 27, so similarly aged friends are still battling with it) and I don't hate them. Just disagree with them.
Click to expand...

How far do you go down that road? If you earn, say, more than the national average wage, is it selfish not to give up everything you earn beyond that level?
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
I wonder if www.conservatives.com has currently got a discussion thread going titled "False 9 - good idea or continental and poncy?"
Click to expand...

Tories probably want standard 4-4-2's with a big man up top, and no variations on that whatsoever. Lib Dems like a good 4-2-3-1, Labour aren't really sure what they want, and Greens prefer the ambitious 1-1-8. UKIP aren't too worried as long as the whole teams British.
 
Cheesy said:
Tories probably want standard 4-4-2's with a big man up top, and no variations on that whatsoever. Lib Dems like a good 4-2-3-1, Labour aren't really sure what they want, and Greens prefer the ambitious 1-1-8. UKIP aren't too worried as long as the whole teams British.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Another short sighted voter!

I'll explain again. Labour spent too much on public services when they should have been reducing the government debt. Crash happened and Labour's lack of saving and investment resulted in a much higher debt than would otherwise be the case.

This debt comes with interest payments. Interest payments mean less money available to spend on public services.

Conservatives are thus forced to reduce spend to reduce this interest so that more people can be saved in the future.

Better one casualty today than 10 tomorrow!

So show all the stories you want, but if Labour hadn't got us into so much debt there may not have had to be this level of cuts and that guy might have been saved.

Add to the fact Labour love hand outs meaning less people working, less people paying taxes and higher government spend that can't go on saving lives.

However you look at it Labour lack basic economic sense.
Click to expand...

If The Torries actually give a toss about reducing the debt why are they reducing taxation on the richest companies and giving multinationals a tax free existance.

rcoobc said:
RedTillImDead... name change needed?
Click to expand...

BlueTillImDead?
 
rcoobc said:
Indeed. But I don't really care about VAT too much, whilst all the "basic" items are zero rated or 5%.

Insurance premiums is an interesting one. Never thought about how much that costs me.
Click to expand...

Necessities go beyond food. Fridge, freezer and boiler. Blankets and clothes. VAT is a hedious regressive tax
 
ConservativeTillImPreservative?
 
rcoobc said:
How could anyone have shat the bed more than David Cameron? Genuine question.

He couldn't even get them to agree, only to pay child benefit to kids in the UK... Something France already has!
Click to expand...

I mean he's only going to go down as the worst British PM since the 1800s but yeah, let's figure out how to blame Labour.
 
Arghhh this thread is now almost as bad as DodgyCommentGate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.