Are the Tories being more divisive on purpose?
pb21
Posts: 2,171
Are they trying to force a bigger wedge between the wealthy and the non-wealthy than you would normally expect from them? It seems so to me.
They seem to be playing the welfare cuts card as a good thing, using misinformation, and lazy stereotypes (not uncommon amongst politicians). They dismiss the possibility of a ‘mansion tax’ as a tax on hard work, rather than a tax on wealth (as if nurses aren’t wealthy because they don’t work hard).
They seem to be playing the welfare cuts card as a good thing, using misinformation, and lazy stereotypes (not uncommon amongst politicians). They dismiss the possibility of a ‘mansion tax’ as a tax on hard work, rather than a tax on wealth (as if nurses aren’t wealthy because they don’t work hard).
Mañana
0
Comments
-
the points I caught on the news were:
- harder to get housing benefit for under 25s. Yup agree with that.
- cap on benefits. agree with that also.
being on benefits CANNOT be a career choice and people cant keep knocking out kids willy nilly knowing the state will fund them. Sorry but f**k right off. Free cars, free house, a good wage worth in benefits, it has to stop. Most working couples have to scrimp and save to afford a child. benefits should be a safety net to help people in trouble, not a viable career choice.
And one thing to consider, without "rich" people there would be no investment in businesses, no businesses, no jobs, etc. They buy goods, thus keeping people IN jobs, and invest their money giving people NEW jobs.
You can only hammer the rich so much before they move their money abroad and there ends up a real problem.
(PS Im not rich!)0 -
can you give me some more info on these free houses and cars theyre giving away? i'd like to apply.'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
Can't fault them on the benefit cuts and apparently Labour would do the same.0
-
aye! take it out on the poor.'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
fast as fupp wrote:can you give me some more info on these free houses and cars theyre giving away? i'd like to apply.
you dont have to look far to find someone with a DLA car, housing benefit and a stack of kids. Why on earth would they go to work?0 -
so how do i get all these wonderful things?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
fast as fupp wrote:so how do i get all these wonderful things?
lie through your teeth and have loads of kids seems to the preferred approach0 -
thats odd that because the only people i know who drive around in DLA cars happen to be working full time. they need cars to get to work as they are disabled-
as for benefits for mothers what would you have- the children taken away from them or for them to be made homeless and starve. look at the rise in food banks around the u.k. people are struggling and not just those out of work.
i think youve swallowed a daily mail and its coming out your bum hole.'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
Its not 'taking it out on the poor'...
Its just reversing the bad decisions made by the previous labour government from 1997-2010.0 -
maybe NI is different as half here on DLA dont need it and half who cant get it do need it.
same with flats/houses. My mum lives in a council flat and of the 3 flats around her I think maybe one actually needs it. The others are rarely there, so clearly dont need it.
as for the daily mail, p!ss right off.
The benefits system seems to be fundamentally broken and rather than fix it Labour seemed happy to just chuck money at it and ignore it. Now Im not saying the Tories are doing any better but if the people who should be working, worked, then the deserved people might actually get a fairer deal.0 -
ALIHISGREAT wrote:Its not 'taking it out on the poor'...
Its just reversing the bad decisions made by the previous labour government from 1997-2010.
i dont see your rich friends suffering, toryboy.'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
paul_mck wrote:maybe NI is different as half here on DLA dont need it and half who cant get it do need it.
same with flats/houses. My mum lives in a council flat and of the 3 flats around her I think maybe one actually needs it. The others are rarely there, so clearly dont need it.
as for the daily mail, p!ss right off.
The benefits system seems to be fundamentally broken and rather than fix it Labour seemed happy to just chuck money at it and ignore it. Now Im not saying the Tories are doing any better but if the people who should be working, worked, then the deserved people might actually get a fairer deal.
just where are the jobs for these folk who should work then? every vacancy in these parts has at least 100 applicants.'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
I cant answer that question, no idea where you live or what jobs are like.0
-
The thing is they seem to be cutting welfare with daily mail like reasoning and manner.
No doubt welfare can be cut, and may well it should be too. But to justify it they are going about it in a way of vilifying those on benefits, like I say being divisive.
At the same time they don't impose a 'mansion tax' because people who live in mansions are hard workers and it wouldn't be fair for a tax on hard work.
But a mansion tax wouldn't be a tax on hard work, it would be a tax on wealth. If it was a tax on hard work nurses, and masses of the population would be taxed as well.Mañana0 -
Of course they are.
Bash the unemployed and the working poor. Turn them against each other so they lose sight of the parasites at the top.
Divide and rule, baby."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
ALIHISGREAT wrote:Its not 'taking it out on the poor'...
Quite right, those at the top are feeling the pinch at the moment too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9233 ... evels.html"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
pb21 wrote:The thing is they seem to be cutting welfare with daily mail like reasoning and manner.
No doubt welfare can be cut, and may well it should be too. But to justify it they are going about it in a way of vilifying those on benefits, like I say being divisive.
At the same time they don't impose a 'mansion tax' because people who live in mansions are hard workers and it wouldn't be fair for a tax on hard work.
But a mansion tax wouldn't be a tax on hard work, it would be a tax on wealth. If it was a tax on hard work nurses, and masses of the population would be taxed as well.
I think the Tories are aware that many of the people who would be hit by the 'mansion tax' have had poor bonus payouts the last few years; in sum cases, these have been less than £100k.
I think even Margaret Thatcher would be embarrassed by some of the policies the Tories have introduced the last few years.
To date, we all have been hit by higher taxes, almost completely across the board.... apart from the rich, who have had a tax cut. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that although we are all being told 'we are equal' (in terms of having to be impacted by austerity cuts), that some people are 'more equal' than others.Simon0 -
jesus lads, you know we live in a capitalist country right?
Try communism, that works real well we can all be poor together
Even try the USA, queue all night to see a volunteer doctor, food stamps, the lot. Id much rather be out of work in this country than the US.0 -
paul_mck wrote:jesus lads, you know we live in a capitalist country right?
Try communism, that works real well we can all be poor together
Even try the USA, queue all night to see a volunteer doctor, food stamps, the lot. Id much rather be out of work in this country than the US.
Eh, just because we live in a capitalist society and I am complaining about the ruling party doesn’t mean I want a move to communism (why bring up communism?!), or more towards a US style society, in fact that’s what I don’t want!!!
Of course you would prefer to be unemployed here rather than the US, that’s the point I am making. It seems there is a similar thing going on in the US at the moment with the ‘tea party’ movement. More divide and rule.Mañana0 -
The better-off also have to pay the same higher taxes. VAT, fuel duty, all the other duties. This tax cut that the bitter / oppressed / envious (pick your label of choice here lefties) are so keen to bang on about was a reversal of a spiteful headline-grabbing increase that Brown brought in, in a shallow and hopelessly transparent attempt at garnering some positive headlines. The cut of which you speak was a reduction from 50 to 45p, still up on the 40p they were paying. Unless you scuttle back to Brown's stupidity in announcing the reduction from 22p to 20p as a cut (thinking no-one else in the country would ever spot the corresponding abolishment of the 10p rate as a net hike, biased heavily against the lower paid) there hasn't been an increase in headline income tax rates apart from the 40--> 50 --> 45 juggling for quite some time.springtide9 wrote:To date, we all have been hit by higher taxes, almost completely across the board.... apart from the rich, who have had a tax cut. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that although we are all being told 'we are equal' (in terms of having to be impacted by austerity cuts), that some people are 'more equal' than others.
Tories being divisive on purpose? Yeah that's a brilliant policy - struggling in the polls, unpopular and with the good old BBC leading the cheering for Milliband being able to string a sentence together last week = Churchillian leader & PM In Waiting; yeah let's p!$$ off everyone not working hard enough to pay 45p income tax. That''s a sure fire election winning strategy surely?0 -
CiB wrote:This tax cut that the bitter / oppressed / envious (pick your label of choice here lefties)
Er, I prefer champagne socialist, if you don't mind
"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
yeah my point is this is the way the world works, always has and probably always will.
I brought up communism to highlight the fact that the alternatives really do suck! In fact there are no alternatives.0 -
CiB wrote:Tories being divisive on purpose? Yeah that's a brilliant policy - struggling in the polls, unpopular and with the good old BBC leading the cheering for Milliband being able to string a sentence together last week = Churchillian leader & PM In Waiting; yeah let's p!$$ off everyone not working hard enough to pay 45p income tax. That''s a sure fire election winning strategy surely?
I guess they don’t think they will win the next election, or get the opportunity to form a coalition, sitting in the centre right. So a move to the right, with a bit of ‘divide and rule’ would mean they would have more chance getting in next time, whilst at the same time pushing through more right wing reform?Mañana0 -
Outsiders view but, under increasing pressure the Conservatives are simply reverting to type, so I don't think you can call that 'on purpose' more instinctive.my isetta is a 300cc bike0
-
Divide and rule doesn't work. It's been obvious since Major beat Kinnock that the route to election victory is in the centre, whether that's centre very slight right or v slight left. Stray too far from the centre and you scare the natives off - ask Mrs T, Kninnock, Howard, Hague and then Brown.pb21 wrote:I guess they don’t think they will win the next election, or get the opportunity to form a coalition, sitting in the centre right. So a move to the right, with a bit of ‘divide and rule’ would mean they would have more chance getting in next time, whilst at the same time pushing through more right wing reform?
Reality is that elections are won & lost in a relatively small number of constituencies where a small swing can make a difference. If there's a big swing (Major --> Blair, Callaghan --> Thatcher etc) policies don't matter that much - the electorate has already collectively decided who will win and tweaks to policy won't alter that.0 -
Don't forget the Tories will be trying to appear more to the right than their actual policies. It's what the faithful want to hear. The rhetoric may not match the reality.Ecrasez l’infame0
-
CiB wrote:
Divide and rule doesn't work. It's been obvious since Major beat Kinnock that the route to election victory is in the centre, whether that's centre very slight right or v slight left. Stray too far from the centre and you scare the natives off - ask Mrs T, Kninnock, Howard, Hague and then Brown.pb21 wrote:I guess they don’t think they will win the next election, or get the opportunity to form a coalition, sitting in the centre right. So a move to the right, with a bit of ‘divide and rule’ would mean they would have more chance getting in next time, whilst at the same time pushing through more right wing reform?
Reality is that elections are won & lost in a relatively small number of constituencies where a small swing can make a difference. If there's a big swing (Major --> Blair, Callaghan --> Thatcher etc) policies don't matter that much - the electorate has already collectively decided who will win and tweaks to policy won't alter that.
Spot on.
The reason the tories are taking this approach is that there are a substantial amount of voters / prospective voters who rightly or wrongly * believe that there are a large amount of those on benefits who are playing the system and having a more comfortable lifestyle than those working hard for a living. Let's be honest here, it's a common rant among people who vote for all parties - I know plenty of life long Labour voters who complain about this. If Labour fail to support the view and make similar noises about being tough on benefits they will lose votes. Add to that, those that do play the system may be less likely to bother voting.
* wrongly IMHO. I reckon that whilst there are people content to play the system and live on benefits it's a small minority and they get noticed whilst all the others struggle on.0 -
CiB wrote:
Divide and rule doesn't work. It's been obvious since Major beat Kinnock that the route to election victory is in the centre, whether that's centre very slight right or v slight left. Stray too far from the centre and you scare the natives off - ask Mrs T, Kninnock, Howard, Hague and then Brown.pb21 wrote:I guess they don’t think they will win the next election, or get the opportunity to form a coalition, sitting in the centre right. So a move to the right, with a bit of ‘divide and rule’ would mean they would have more chance getting in next time, whilst at the same time pushing through more right wing reform?
Reality is that elections are won & lost in a relatively small number of constituencies where a small swing can make a difference. If there's a big swing (Major --> Blair, Callaghan --> Thatcher etc) policies don't matter that much - the electorate has already collectively decided who will win and tweaks to policy won't alter that.
Even though I disagree with you on policy, I do agree with the above.
I think the majority of people who consider themselves 'socialists' nowadays are people who would prefer policies to be swayed towards centre left rather than centre right.Simon0 -
No
They are mostly correct.
I have personal first hand experience of family members and a friend who have never really worked and have carved a decent living out of staying in bed in a morning and claiming benefits.
I had the same upbringing as them, the same opportunities, and have managed with difficulty at times to work all of my adult life.
It really gets my goat that people who don't srike a bat ae able to give their children more than I am because they earn more for doing nothing than I do for 50 hours.
Stop the benefits and if you want to have 5 kids get a job that will allow you to pay for them0 -
pauldavid wrote:I have personal first hand experience of family members and a friend who have never really worked and have carved a decent living out of staying in bed in a morning and claiming benefits.
What do you mean by 'a decent living'?
Does anyone really believe that someone who lives solely on benefits and has never really worked could be described as having a decent standard of living?Mañana0
