Why are the Tories the best!
Discussion
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Digga said:
NoNeed said:
They arn't.
They are just the best of the biggest parties that have a chance.
The debate is going off at a tangent. The best answer to the OP's question was, IMHO, the first one.They are just the best of the biggest parties that have a chance.
To use a motoring analogy - we are on PH after all - It's like buying a car, there's what's the best and what you can realistically afford and is available. Hence why I do not own a 1950's Le Mans D-type Jaguar.
I can barely bring myself to vote Conservative (still very much 'wanting' to vote UKIP), but may amend this decision nearer the time. However, of the TV policial parties, they are the best by a mile in terms of being fit to run the country.
I, personally, cannot see labour winning this election. I think we are going to get either Tory victory or a hung parliament.
Don said:
Tory policy has varied widely over the years with regard to specifics.
You shouldn't look too closely at "policy". What matters more is "philospophy".
Traditionally the Conservatives are philospohically wedded to the idea of the individual being the most important rather than the state. Hence they tend to prefer policies where the individual has more freedoms AND responsibilities rather than fewer.
If you think that "Something Must Be Done" and it's "The Government's Job" to do it then you should vote Labour - as they will want to employ public servants to do it.
If you think "Surely it's my choice" then consider the Conservatives.
As always you will be able to find exceptions. IMO these prove the rule.
Thanks for that Don You shouldn't look too closely at "policy". What matters more is "philospophy".
Traditionally the Conservatives are philospohically wedded to the idea of the individual being the most important rather than the state. Hence they tend to prefer policies where the individual has more freedoms AND responsibilities rather than fewer.
If you think that "Something Must Be Done" and it's "The Government's Job" to do it then you should vote Labour - as they will want to employ public servants to do it.
If you think "Surely it's my choice" then consider the Conservatives.
As always you will be able to find exceptions. IMO these prove the rule.
That has helped me make my mind up regarding who to vote for. It was going to be UKIP but if we are to have any chance and getting a little help I think I'd better vote conservative.
Who knows in 5 years time that may change again....or if the media is to be trusted and we get a hung parliment maybe sooner.
ETA - I don't trust the media!!
Regards
Matt
Don said:
Tory policy has varied widely over the years with regard to specifics.
You shouldn't look too closely at "policy". What matters more is "philospophy".
Traditionally the Conservatives are philospohically wedded to the idea of the individual being the most important rather than the state. Hence they tend to prefer policies where the individual has more freedoms AND responsibilities rather than fewer.
If you think that "Something Must Be Done" and it's "The Government's Job" to do it then you should vote Labour - as they will want to employ public servants to do it.
If you think "Surely it's my choice" then consider the Conservatives.
As always you will be able to find exceptions. IMO these prove the rule.
nicely put, i didnt think of it like that beforeYou shouldn't look too closely at "policy". What matters more is "philospophy".
Traditionally the Conservatives are philospohically wedded to the idea of the individual being the most important rather than the state. Hence they tend to prefer policies where the individual has more freedoms AND responsibilities rather than fewer.
If you think that "Something Must Be Done" and it's "The Government's Job" to do it then you should vote Labour - as they will want to employ public servants to do it.
If you think "Surely it's my choice" then consider the Conservatives.
As always you will be able to find exceptions. IMO these prove the rule.
That is indeed a very good way to put it.
It's not CMD you're voting for, or smiley-smiley-Clegg, or the scotch idiot, but their parties general outlook on life.
It's not a game show either - so the way the polls go up and down depending on who grins at the camera the most is quite frankly frightening.
It's not CMD you're voting for, or smiley-smiley-Clegg, or the scotch idiot, but their parties general outlook on life.
It's not a game show either - so the way the polls go up and down depending on who grins at the camera the most is quite frankly frightening.
fbrs said:
Don said:
Tory policy has varied widely over the years with regard to specifics.
You shouldn't look too closely at "policy". What matters more is "philospophy".
Traditionally the Conservatives are philospohically wedded to the idea of the individual being the most important rather than the state. Hence they tend to prefer policies where the individual has more freedoms AND responsibilities rather than fewer.
If you think that "Something Must Be Done" and it's "The Government's Job" to do it then you should vote Labour - as they will want to employ public servants to do it.
If you think "Surely it's my choice" then consider the Conservatives.
As always you will be able to find exceptions. IMO these prove the rule.
nicely put, i didnt think of it like that beforeYou shouldn't look too closely at "policy". What matters more is "philospophy".
Traditionally the Conservatives are philospohically wedded to the idea of the individual being the most important rather than the state. Hence they tend to prefer policies where the individual has more freedoms AND responsibilities rather than fewer.
If you think that "Something Must Be Done" and it's "The Government's Job" to do it then you should vote Labour - as they will want to employ public servants to do it.
If you think "Surely it's my choice" then consider the Conservatives.
As always you will be able to find exceptions. IMO these prove the rule.
How would you describe the LibDems as a matter of interest?
Don said:
Tory policy has varied widely over the years with regard to specifics.
You shouldn't look too closely at "policy". What matters more is "philospophy".
Traditionally the Conservatives are philospohically wedded to the idea of the individual being the most important rather than the state. Hence they tend to prefer policies where the individual has more freedoms AND responsibilities rather than fewer.
That doesn't sound conservative to me - that's liberal (in the traditional sense, not the Americanised version as a catch-all for everything that doesn't conform to moral principles of the ultra-orthodox 'God, Guns & Gasoline' brigade). Traditionally those who bill themselves 'conservative' (without a capital C) are as controlling and authoritarian as anything and very much into imposing 'traditional/family' values as well as their idea of public order on the rest of us. Their support of the idea of a small government has nowt much to do with libertarianism in se - more their distrust of governments in their efficiency of imposing these values instead of family/church/charities/gentlemen's societies etc.You shouldn't look too closely at "policy". What matters more is "philospophy".
Traditionally the Conservatives are philospohically wedded to the idea of the individual being the most important rather than the state. Hence they tend to prefer policies where the individual has more freedoms AND responsibilities rather than fewer.
Although the Conservatives have made some encouraging noises in their latest manifesto with regards to personal freedoms and responsibilities, it's not their traditional role in the political spectrum. Again I refer to the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act - the most authoritarian piece of legislation that I've seen from a Western European country in my lifetime to date.
It's just that 'liberal' and left-wing parties have become even worse in recent decades for a multitude of reasons...
Edited by 900T-R on Friday 23 April 14:59
Sadly, they are not the best.
The key to this election is who is the worst. Labour have this by a mile.
Any vote that isn't for the Conservatives is a vote for Gordon Brown.
As such, while I don't particularly like Dave and I don't feel his party represent me I will be voting Conservative as the risk of Labour staying in or even a hung parliament is the end of this country.
This is the most important election since WC became PM but it's not about ensuring who the next leader is, it's all about ensuring who it isn't.
The key to this election is who is the worst. Labour have this by a mile.
Any vote that isn't for the Conservatives is a vote for Gordon Brown.
As such, while I don't particularly like Dave and I don't feel his party represent me I will be voting Conservative as the risk of Labour staying in or even a hung parliament is the end of this country.
This is the most important election since WC became PM but it's not about ensuring who the next leader is, it's all about ensuring who it isn't.
DonkeyApple said:
Any vote that isn't for the Conservatives is a vote for Gordon Brown.
I disagree...Any vote that isn't for the Conservatives, is a vote for a Hung-Parliament.
There is no way Labour are going to win with a Majority. And it is looking more and more likely that Labour are going to come 3rd in this election.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
DonkeyApple said:
Any vote that isn't for the Conservatives is a vote for Gordon Brown.
I disagree...Any vote that isn't for the Conservatives, is a vote for a Hung-Parliament.
There is no way Labour are going to win with a Majority. And it is looking more and more likely that Labour are going to come 3rd in this election.
rypt said:
fbrs said:
rypt said:
Brown clearly wanted increasing interest rates as he hiked fuel duty which in turn hiked CPI
right obviously, i had no idea. and why would brown want higher inflation and interest rates?MonkeyMatt said:
There has been much political debate on here with the run up to the election and it very much appears that the PH majority are of the Conservative persuasion!
To be honest I am not too sure, I think there are a very vocal proportion of people on here who appear on every political thread frothing at the mouth and drowning out any actual debate. I personally think it tarnishes the forum to a point where people will not reply with their own views as they know the insulting/immature responses will outweigh any possible chance of a sensible debate on matters.fbrs said:
rypt said:
fbrs said:
rypt said:
Brown clearly wanted increasing interest rates as he hiked fuel duty which in turn hiked CPI
right obviously, i had no idea. and why would brown want higher inflation and interest rates?The Conservative party is the only one with a chance of pulling the economic miracle we badly need, out of the hat.
Sure, some people will suffer. I might even be one to suffer.
What Labour will never tell you is how to build a private sector. That is the economic miracle that we need. They won't tell you because it's not a part of their psyche. They don't actually know. A decade ago, they didn't know they needed to know. Now, they do.
When they say that they're putting economic recovery at the heart of their policy, just ask yourself how they're going to build that economic miracle. Everyone accepts it's the private sector that we need. That miracle is the one which will earn money, and pay the debt.
Only the Tories have an answer to that question. It wholly depends on something intangible. All you have to do is believe. It's not rocket science, but the framework that makes it happen is all set out in their little blue exercise book. It's the manifesto.
Frankly, I understand that people can't see it. Under labour we have been like monkeys in a test lab. Push the button, get a sweet. To believe that following some simple guidelines will make sweets appear by magic is intensely difficult.
The problem is that quite soon, pushing the button will no longer yield a sweet. It won't matter who you vote for, who wins, or how hard you push the button. The sweet will not appear.
So if you want the sweets, it's better to believe that little blue book, than to hope the button will keep working for you.
Technically the cannon is broken, and we need a new one. It is perfectly possible that we will have to wait another five years to get it.
The politicians don't like to hear it, but politics is canonical.
Sure, some people will suffer. I might even be one to suffer.
What Labour will never tell you is how to build a private sector. That is the economic miracle that we need. They won't tell you because it's not a part of their psyche. They don't actually know. A decade ago, they didn't know they needed to know. Now, they do.
When they say that they're putting economic recovery at the heart of their policy, just ask yourself how they're going to build that economic miracle. Everyone accepts it's the private sector that we need. That miracle is the one which will earn money, and pay the debt.
Only the Tories have an answer to that question. It wholly depends on something intangible. All you have to do is believe. It's not rocket science, but the framework that makes it happen is all set out in their little blue exercise book. It's the manifesto.
Frankly, I understand that people can't see it. Under labour we have been like monkeys in a test lab. Push the button, get a sweet. To believe that following some simple guidelines will make sweets appear by magic is intensely difficult.
The problem is that quite soon, pushing the button will no longer yield a sweet. It won't matter who you vote for, who wins, or how hard you push the button. The sweet will not appear.
So if you want the sweets, it's better to believe that little blue book, than to hope the button will keep working for you.
Technically the cannon is broken, and we need a new one. It is perfectly possible that we will have to wait another five years to get it.
The politicians don't like to hear it, but politics is canonical.
Edited by dilbert on Friday 23 April 15:43
DonkeyApple said:
Any vote that isn't for the Conservatives is a vote for Gordon Brown.
Not true. If you live in Buckingham, your choice is between John 'Bent' Bercow (Conservative party) or Nick "Swivel-Eyes" Farage (UKIP).DonkeyApple said:
In the event of a hung parliament who will the LibDems side with? It's not going to be the Conservatives.
I wouldn't be so sure.- Lib-Lab, with Brown is a non-starter.
- Lib-Lab with another Labour leader is possible. But who, and would the country stomach it given how many (Harman, Milliband, etc.) are damaged goods. Only Alan Johnson (and that says something)
- I wouldn't totally rule out a Lab-Lib, if the polls move any further.
- A Lib-Con "Change Government" is not totally inconceivable. The Cons might concede on some PR (the STV option), Clegg gets a platform to cement his improved credibility, and we lose our fear of coalition. Labour are out of it for a generation; it becomes a Lib-Con battle at the next election; PR weakens the Cons, evening the battle; In a hung parliament, Clegg becomes leader of a Lib-Lab pact. The rules have changed for a century.
I don't trust the polls and their interpetation to seats (I don't think they can map such large and such regional changes), and I don't think we're going to have a clue until well into the 7th May.
900T-R said:
That doesn't sound conservative to me - that's liberal (in the traditional sense)
True enoughBut following the destruction of the liberal party by the advent of mass suffrage is the Conservatives far more than the LIb Dems who now represent their values in modern politics.
Churchill was merely the most famous of the Liberals to switch over to the Conservatives.
This does create a tension in the Conservative party between its Liberal tendancies and the old paternalistic attitude.
rypt said:
a higher rate of inflation works out better for the borrower (the government)
for 600bn of the non-index-linked debt you are right, inflation effectively reduces the value of the debt. BUT
we are running close to 200bn deficit (meaning we need to borrow 200bn MORE!) and old debt that is maturing needs 're-borrowing' all of which costs more in a high interest/inflation economy. secondly, 200bn of gilts are index linked and unfunded public sector pensions of 1000+ bn are index linked, so cost more directly in line with rpi/cpi.
maybe brown only gets the first bit. maybe he's just trying to screw his successor...
either way the tw*t should be hanged and his head put on a spike on tower bridge
fbrs said:
either way the tw*t should be hanged and his head put on a spike on tower bridge
Sorry, but rubbish like this really annoys me. He shouldn't get the privilege of being pronged on our bridges. Send the bog-eyed 
back to his home town and show the local Labourites what happens when you come south of the border with silly ideas.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff